Opinion ID: 2536991
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Under Robinson, strict product liability applies retroactively to Lunsford's claim

Text: ¶ 30 This court adopted section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, applying strict product liability as to manufacturers in Ulmer v. Ford Motor Co., 75 Wash.2d 522, 452 P.2d 729 (1969), and as to sellers and suppliers in Seattle-First National Bank v. Tabert, 86 Wash.2d 145, 542 P.2d 774 (1975). [19] In both cases, we applied the new rule of law to the litigants before the court. In neither Ulmer nor Tabert did we expressly reserve retroactive application of strict product liability. In accordance with our holding in Robinson, strict product liability now applies retroactively to all claims against manufacturers and suppliers of products. [20] ¶ 31 Saberhagen argues, however, that because the issue has not been squarely addressed, retroactivity of strict product liability under the common law is an issue of first impression. Under our holding in Robinson, the issue of retroactivity is settled by our decision announcing a new rule of law regardless of whether it is raised by the parties and regardless of whether we address the issue. 119 Wash.2d at 77, 830 P.2d 318. In Robinson, we had not yet addressed the retroactive application of our decisions in San Telmo Associates and R/L Associates but simply applied those decisions to the litigants before us. Robinson, 119 Wash.2d at 78, 830 P.2d 318. Despite our failure to directly address this issue, we held these prior applications of a new rule of law required application of the same rule in Robinson and that no balancing of the equities under the Chevron Oil test was required. Robinson, 119 Wash.2d at 80, 830 P.2d 318. The same reasoning applies here. ¶ 32 Our decisions of law apply retroactively to all litigants not barred by procedural requirements unless we expressly limit our decision to purely prospective application. Id. Therefore, our failure to address whether strict product liability applies retroactively in Ulmer, Tabert, and subsequent decisions is not relevant to whether strict product liability applies to Lunsford's claim. Robinson, 119 Wash.2d at 77, 830 P.2d 318. Because we applied strict product liability to the litigants before this court in Ulmer and Tabert, strict product liability also applies to all subsequent claims against manufacturers and suppliers of products not barred by procedural requirements, regardless of whether those claims arose prior or subsequent to our adoption of section 402A. It follows that strict product liability applies to Lunsford's claim as well.