![]() |

|
Court expands liability, retroactively
Bad decision for the business community On June 4 the Washington Supreme Court issued its decision in Lunsford v. Saberhagen Holdings which has severe liability consequences. In a unanimous decision, the court held that strict liability applies retroactively to all claims, such as from asbestos exposure, that occurred before the adoption of strict liability. Strict liability means a manufacturer or seller is liable for a defective or dangerous product even if it wasn't negligent in manufacturing or selling the product. The US Chamber of Commerce filed a coalition friend of the court brief in the case arguing against retroactive application. The Chamber pointed out that retroactive application of strict liability would be inconsistent with the court's own recent rulings about retroactivity and particularly troubling for products liability defendants in the state. Interestingly, last year, the Supreme Court of Ohio had a virtually identical case before it and reached the exact opposite result, which was left undisturbed on appeal to the US Supreme Court. Wacky Warning Labels!
The Foundation for Fair Civil Justice (FFCJ) named the winners in its 12th annual Wacky Warning label contest. This year’s grand prize winner is a label attached to a portable toilet seat for outdoorsmen called “The Off-Road Commode” because it is designed to attach to a vehicle’s trailer hitch. The label warns: “Not for use on moving vehicles.” Click here to see the video! The second prize winner is a wart removal product instruction guide that warns, “Do not use if you cannot see clearly to read the information in the information booklet.” A tie for third prize Winner includes a label on the underside of a cereal bowl warns, “Always use this product with adult supervision,” and a warning label on a bag of livestock castration rings that warns, “For animal use only.” A fifth finalist sent in a warning label on a small, 1” x 4” LCD panel that warns, “Do not eat the LCD panel.” |
LEGISLATIVE WRAP UP
The 2009 session comes to a close After 105 days of a hard-fought battle, the LRC and its members can declare victory in the 2009 legislative session. With the trial lawyers having an abundance of supporters in both the House and Senate, it’s an even more impressive victory for the LRC. To list the many liability-expanding bills this session would be too cumbersome, and perhaps even depressing. But in the end, there were 18 significant, bad bills. The lowlights of this list include:
Perhaps one of the greatest successes for LRC members was the fact that the trial lawyers’ number one priority was not even introduced this year. Their bill to expand the state’s wrongful death statute didn’t get off the ground thanks to the good work of the LRC last year. A 2008 in-depth study commissioned by the LRC revealed that the proposal would increase the frequency of claims against the state by a whopping 80%, costing taxpayers $19 million per biennium. The LRC managed to kill the bill last year and keep it off the agenda this year. The legislature and the governor did give the trial lawyers one bill: a measure to expand the state’s consumer protection act(CPA) by increasing the damages allowed from $10,000 to $25,000 and removing the requirement that a private plaintiff prove that the public is impacted by the CPA claim. This is a win for trial lawyers because it is widely expected to be an invitation for more lawsuits to be filed more easily, for more money. But even with the CPA bill, the 2009 session was undoubtedly an enormous success for the LRC and its members. 18-1 is reason for celebration. For a complete list of liability bills from the 2009 session, see the LRC’s bill tracker. Our mission
•To limit expansion of tort liability Our members
The LRC membership is a broad
coalition of Stay informed
Sign up for the free LRC E-News, providing supporters of liability reform with quick, concise reports of the latest state and national liability information. To be added to the distribution list, e-mail LRC Executive Director Dana Childers. |
Top five “loony lawsuits”
www.sickoflawsuits.com Their name says it all. SickOfLawsuits.com has compiled a list of the top five “looniest lawsuits” of 2008. And who says our judicial system doesn’t need common-sense reform? 5. Lap Dance Lawsuit 4. Lost her Laptop and her Mind 3. Blonde-Turned-Brunette Sues 2. $54 Million “Pants Suit” 1. Wronged by a Thong |