Opinion ID: 1133549
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: entity liability

Text: Petitioner also contends the trial court erred in dismissing its affirmative defense of entity liability under RCW 4.22.015 and RCW 4.22.070(1), [52] arguing that liability should be shared by the installer of the studded snow tires, the manufacturer of the Goodyear tires on the rear wheels, and the manufacturer of the Hyundai automobile. [53] The Court of Appeals concluded that a defendant manufacturer can only apportion fault to an entity liable to a plaintiff under the PLA. [54] The Court defined fault in a product liability claim to include only those liable in a product liability claim, that is, manufacturers and product sellers. [55] In upholding dismissal by the trial court, it concluded that because Petitioner Bridgestone/Firestone was the only manufacturer of the tires mounted on the front wheels of Respondent's automobile prior to the accident, other entities could not be held liable. [56] The plain language of the contributory fault statute, however, does not support the conclusion of the Court of Appeals. RCW 4.22.015 states in relevant part: Fault defined. Fault includes acts or omissions, including misuse of a product, that are in any measure negligent or reckless toward the person or property of the actor or others, or that subject a person to strict tort liability or liability on a product liability claim. The term also includes breach of warranty, unreasonable assumption of risk, and unreasonable failure to avoid an injury or to mitigate damages. Legal requirements of causal relation apply both to fault as the basis for liability and to contributory fault. RCW 4.22.070(1) states in pertinent part: In all actions involving fault of more than one entity, the trier of fact shall determine the percentage of the total fault which is attributable to every entity which caused the claimant's damages except entities immune from liability to the claimant under Title 51 RCW. ... The entities whose fault shall be determined include the claimant or person suffering personal injury or incurring property damage, defendants, third-party defendants, entities released by the claimant, entities with any other individual defense against the claimant, but shall not include those entities immune from liability to the claimant under Title 51 RCW.... (Emphasis added). The statutory definition of fault in RCW 4.22.015 is quite broad and is not limited to manufacturers and product sellers. Nothing in the definition suggests that only certain parts of it apply in certain types of cases. Under that definition, a party could still be held liable even though it was neither a manufacturer nor seller of a product involved in a product liability action. The definition includes all degrees of fault in tort actions except intentional torts. [57] The language of RCW 4.22.070(1) is similarly quite broad, applying to  all actions involving fault of more than one entity.... (Emphasis added). RCW 4.22.070 encourages trials when the principal issue is the liability of the empty chair, that is, a party that is either not represented, immune from suit, or otherwise not in the courtroom. [58] In Lundberg v. All-Pure Chemical Co. [59] plaintiffs brought a failure-to-warn claim under the PLA against the manufacturer of pool chlorinating products after the products exploded. [60] Jury instructions included an instruction on plaintiff's comparative negligence. [61] The jury found plaintiff 51 percent comparatively negligent and her damage award was reduced accordingly. [62] On appeal, plaintiff claimed consideration of fault was improper because strict liability focuses on the product and not on negligent conduct. [63] The Court of Appeals upheld the jury instruction, stating [t]he legislature has determined that the comparative fault doctrine shall apply to all actions based on `fault,' including strict liability and product liability claims. [64] Respondent contends the Legislature intended to limit, rather than expand, the category of defendants subject to a product liability claim, [65] relying on Buttelo v. S.A. Woods-Yates Am. Mach. Co. [66] In Buttelo, however, the court merely limited a product lessor's liability under the Product Liability Act and in fact discussed a non-seller defendant's potential vicarious liability for an employee's negligence in supervising installation of the product. [67] Respondent also argues that Washington Water Power Co. v. Graybar Elec. Co. [68] stands for the proposition that the affirmative defense of entity liability is not available in a product liability claim. [69] Graybar is not pertinent to this case, holding only that a plaintiff has no cause of action for a product-related harm against a manufacturer or product seller except under the PLA because common law remedies are not available. [70] The case does not involve the affirmative defense of entity liability. The interplay between RCW 4.22.015 and RCW 4.22.070 has been described by one writer in this manner: The incorporation of RCW 4.22.015's definition of fault has important consequences for the application of RCW 4.22.070. Because RCW 4.22.015 includes strict tort liability within the meaning of fault, RCW 4.22.070 applies in cases of strict liability just as it governs cases of simple negligence. Likewise, because RCW 4.22.015 includes liability on a product liability claim within the meaning of fault, RCW 4.22.070 applies with full force to claims based on defective products. In sum, the statutory modification of joint and several liability applies to all actions based upon the broad definition of fault, whatever the theory of liability.[ [71] ] (Emphasis added). The plain language of RCW 4.22.015 and RCW 4.22.070(1) does not support a conclusion that the affirmative defense of entity liability applies only to manufacturers and product sellers in a product liability action.