Opinion ID: 1154815
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: issues

Text: CONCLUSION. The Washington product liability act (RCW 7.72) created a single cause of action for product-related harms, and supplants previously existing common law remedies, including common law actions for negligence. Dr. Klicpera argues that if a product liability claim under the PLA is disallowed by this court, we should then allow a negligence claim based upon the drug company's failure to warn of its product's dangers. We decline to do so. After the enactment of the PLA, such a claim is not viable in a products case. [10] As we explained in Washington Water Power Co. v. Graybar Elec. Co., 112 Wn.2d 847, 850-55, 860, 774 P.2d 1199, 779 P.2d 697 (1989), the PLA preempts traditional common law remedies for product-related harms. A claim previously based on negligence is within the definition of a product liability claim. [29] Since this present cause of action is predicated upon a failure to warn by a product manufacturer, any negligence cause of action therefor is now preempted by the PLA. Therefore, this product liability claim cannot be maintained on a common law negligence theory. [30] The PLA does allow claimants to bring a Consumer Protection Act claim since that cause of action has been specifically exempted from the preemptive effect of the product liability act. [31]