Breach of Warranty
A health care provider may be liable for breach of warranty if promised the patient or his representative that the injury suffered would not occur.[1]
Continue readingStandard of Care
In Washington by statute medical malpractice claims must be brought under one of three theories. Failure to follow the accepted standard of care Breach of warranty Failure to Provide informed consent[1] The standard of care has two elements:
Continue readingWrongful Death Survival Statute
In addition to seeking “actual pecuniary loss” on behalf of statutory beneficiaries Washington has three survival statutes under which a deceased’s injury claim may be brought. Washington has three wrongful death survival statutes, a general survival statute and two that relate to personal injury claims.
Continue readingWrongful Death Statute
Wrongful death claims are claims brought on behalf of beneficiaries of the deceased as defined by statute against the negligent defendant whose actions proximately caused the death. Depending on the facts and circumstances other claims might be brought under the survival statutes. Both types of claims are often referred to as “wrongful death” claims for […]
Continue readingBreach of Warranty
A product liability claim may be based on breach of warranty. A manufacturer may be liable under Washington products liability law even in the absence of design defects, construction defects, or a failure to warn if the product fails a warranty. A warranty may be expressed or implied.
Continue readingFailure to Warn
A product liability claim may be based on a theory of failure to warn.[1] The standard, like design defect product liability claims, is the reasonable expectations of the consumer rather than foreseeability.[2]
Continue readingDesign Defects
To prove a design defect products liability claim the injured party must prove that a manufacturer’s product was not reasonable safe as designed and caused injury.[1] The injured part may prove a design defect by either of two tests, the risk-utility test or the consumer expectations test.[2]
Continue readingThe Public Duty Doctrine and Legislative Intent
The public duty doctrine is a defense to claims against state and local governmental entities. The doctrine in its simplest terms is expressed by the observation that a “duty to all is a duty to no one”.[1] The legislative intent exception applies where the terms of a statute evidence a clear intent to identify and […]
Continue readingPublic Duty Doctrine
To prove a claim for injury the injury victim must prove the existence of a duty and breach of the duty. In Washington the state Supreme Court has adopted the public duty doctrine.[1] If the injury claim is against a non-federal governmental entity the injury claimant must prove there was a duty specific to the […]
Continue readingManufacturing Defect
Manufacturers are strictly liable in a products liability claim for an injury proximately caused by a “defect in construction”.[1] Unlike a design defect or failure to warn, a manufacturing defect is a defect in the construction of the particular product rather than the entire product line.
Continue reading