Opinion ID: 2633369
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Manufacturers

Text: This court has previously recognized that rational distinctions exist between manufacturers and people who construct improvements upon real estate. See Condit v. Lewis Refrigeration Co., 101 Wash.2d 106, 110-11, 676 P.2d 466 (1984). Recognized rational distinctions between these two classes include the following: (1) Manufacturers have liability under products liability law, an independent area of law separate from basic negligence or breach of contract, and this area of law has its own statutes of limitation, which are keyed to the useful life of the product. See Condit, 101 Wash.2d at 112, 676 P.2d 466; RCW 7.72.060. (2) Manufacturers produce standardized goods from pretested designs and in large quantities whereas contractors make a unique product designed to deal with the distinct needs of a particular piece of real estate. Blaske v. Smith & Entzeroth, Inc., 821 S.W.2d 822, 830 (Mo.1991); see also Freezer Storage, Inc. v. Armstrong Cork Co., 476 Pa. 270, 277, 382 A.2d 715 (1978). (3) Manufacturers produce their goods in a controlled environment whereas contractors build improvements upon real estate in an ever-changing environment. Blaske, 821 S.W.2d at 830; Freezer Storage, 476 Pa. at 277, 382 A.2d 715. (4) Manufacturers do not contribute to the structural aspects of real estate improvements; nor do they engage in any of the construction activities enumerated in RCW 4.16.310. Condit, 101 Wash.2d at 110-11, 676 P.2d 466. Because contractors and manufacturers operate in substantially different environments, we conclude that the legislature's exclusion of manufacturers was rationally related to its purpose of protecting people who construct improvements upon real estate from excessive liability.