Source: https://www.washingtonjustice.org/index.cfm?pg=semwebCatalog&panel=showSWOD&seminarid=9086
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 19:43:12+00:00

Document:
HBH v. State of Washington, Supreme Court # 94529-2, which concerns the issue whether DSHS has a special relationship with the foster children in its charge, giving rise to a duty of protection under the common law.
Durant v. State Farm, Supreme Court # 94771-6, which concerns whether State Farm's PIP policy limitation of payment for medical services "essential in achieving maximum medical improvement for the bodily injury sustained in the accident" is inconsistent with Washington insurance code regulations and policy reflected in the PIP statutes and regulations to "make whole" parties injured in automobile accidents.
Rublee v. Pfizer, Supreme Court # 94732-5, which concerns issues whether Washington should adopt the "apparent manufacturer" doctrine set forth in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 400 (1965), whether § 400 apparent manufacturer liability requires proof of reliance, if proof of reliance is required under § 400 whether the objective reliance test from the viewpoint of the end user of the product should be adopted, and whether § 400 liability is limited to sellers and others in the chain of product distribution.
Murray v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., Supreme Court # 95251-5, is a workers' compensation case which concerns whether medical coverage determinations made by the Health Technology Clinical Committee (created in chapter 70.14 RCW) are preclusive and foreclose an individual review by an injured worker seeking "proper and necessary" medical benefits under Washington's Industrial Insurance Act.
Martin v. Gonzaga University, Supreme Court # 95269-8, which concerns issues related to the scope of a common law claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy and, in particular, the proper interpretation and application of the so-called "Perritt test."
In the second half of the Webinar, we will be joined by Tacoma attorney Paul Lindenmuth for an in-depth discussion of Smelser v. Paul, 188 Wn.2d 648, 398 P.3d 1086 (2017). Mr. Lindenmuth was trial and appellate counsel for the plaintiffs in this case in which WSAJ Foundation filed an amicus brief. The Supreme Court held that in a cause of action for injury to a child, fault could not be apportioned under RCW 4.22.070 to a father because the law does not allow a child to recover against a parent for negligent supervision.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 400
 § 400
 § 400
 § 400
 v. 
 v. 
 v.