- Personal
- Property
- Economic
- Intentional
- Negligent
- Nonculpable
- Cost spread across users
- Trespass
- Timber: treble damages under RCW 64.12.030 (L 1869 ... 81)
- Assault
- Battery
- False imprisonment
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress
- Defamation: libel, slander
- Invasion of privacy
- Interference with contract
- Duty: “privity” no longer the law
- Standard of conduct: reasonable person?
- Objective standard
- Unreasonable risk of harm
- Customary practice
- Statute violation: RCW 5.40.050 (L 86, 01)
- Res ipsa loquitur
- Clark v. Icicle Irrigation, 72 Wn. 2d 201 (1967)
- Murphy v. Montgomery Elevator (1992)
- Kimball v. Otis Elevator, 89 Wn. App. 169 (1997)
- Pacheco v. Ames, 149 Wn. 2d 431 (2003)
- Robison v. Cascade, 117 Wn. App. 552 (2003)
- Kempter v. City of Soap Lake, 132 Wn. App. 155 (2006)
- Legal cause
- Cause in fact (“but for”)
- Proximate cause
- Protected interest
- Negligent infliction of emotional distress
- Defenses
- Completion and acceptance doctrine
- Davis v. Baugh Indus. Contractors, 159 Wn. 2d 413 (2007)
- Assumption of risk
- Erie v. White, 92 Wn. App. 297 (1998)
- Home v. N. Kitsap S.D., 92 Wn. App. 709 (1998)
- Brown v. Stevens Pass, 97 Wn. App. 519 (1999)
- Chauvlier v. Booth Creek, 109 Wn. App. 334 (2001)
- Stokes v. Bally’s Pacwest, 113 Wn. App. 442 (2002)
- Taylor v. Baseball Club of Seattle, 132 Wn. App. 32 (2006)
- Lascheid v. City of Kennewick, 137 Wn. App. 633 (2007)
- Beaupre v. Pierce County, 161 Wn. 2d 568 (2007)
- Johnson v. Ubar, 150 Wn. App. 533 (2009)
- Contributory (v. comparative) negligence
- Independent contractor
- Completion and acceptance doctrine
- Abnormally dangerous activities
- Oja v. Park Towers (1977)
- Vicarious liability
- Workers’ compensation
- Product liability
- Lost consortium
- Wrongful death
- Charitable organizations: virtually abolished
- Employers: few exceptions
- Public officials: RCW 4.24.470 (L 87)
- Sovereign immunity limited: 28 USC ch 171
- Conduct: intentional, negligent, innocent
- Person harmed
- Type of loss
- Reliance
- To passersby
- Adjacent land: Lewis v. Krussel, 101 Wn. App. 178 (2000)
- Public sidewalk: Birdsall v. Abrams, 105 Wn. App. 24 (2001)
- Public sidewalk: Rosengren v. Seattle, 149 Wn. App. 565 (2009)
- Parking strip: Hofstatter v. Seattle, 105 Wn. App. 596 (2001)
- Parking strip: Wilson v. Seattle, 146 Wn. App. 737 (2008)
- Planting strip: Coulson v. Huntsman, 121 Wn. App. 941 (2004)
- Boardwalk: Seiber v. Poulsbo Marine, 136 Wn. App. 731 (2007)
- To trespassing adults (not outlaws)
- To trespassing children (special)
- To licensees: repair known conditions, warn of non-obvious conditions
- To invitees (highest): exercise reasonable care to protect against dangers
- Tincani v. Inland Empire, 124 Wn. 2d 121 (1994)
- Leonard v. Pay’n Save (1994)
- McMann v. Benton County, 88 Wn. App. 737 (1997)
- Craig v. Washington Trust, 94 Wn. App. 820 (1999)
- Mucsi v. Graoch Assocs., 144 Wn. 2d 847 (2001)
- Beebe v. Moses, 113 Wn. App. 464 (2002)
- Williamson v. Allied, 117 Wn. App. 451 (2003)
- Suriano v. Sears, 117 Wn. App. 819 (2003)
- Sjogren v. Properties, 118 Wn. App. 144 (2003)
- Ganno v. Lanoga, 119 Wn. App. 310 (2003)
- Barker v. Skagit Speedway, 119 Wn. App. 807 (2003)
- Fuentes v. Port of Seattle, 119 Wn. App. 864 (2003)
- Fredrickson v. Bertolino’s, 131 Wn. App. 183 (2005)
- Schmidt v. Coogan, 135 Wn. App. 605 (2006)
- Dilley v. S&R Holdings, 137 Wn. App. 774 (2007)
- Curtis v. Lein, 150 Wn. App. 96 (2009)
- Trend to general (invitee) standard?
- Defenses
- Superior knowledge
- Stimus v. Hagstrom (1997)
- Recreational use: RCW 4.24.210 (L 67 ... 06)
- Van Dinter v. Kennewick, 121 Wn. 2d 38 (1993)
- Ertl v. Parks (1994)
- Ravenscroft v. WWP, 136 Wn. 2d 911 (1998)
- Cultee v. Tacoma, 95 Wn. App. 505 (1999)
- Nielsen v. Port of Bellingham, 107 Wn. App. 662 (2001)
- Davis v. State, 144 Wn. 2d 612 (2001)
SB 5297 (2001): define “artificial” and “latent”- SHB 1195 (L 03): add rock climbing [ report]
- HB 1666 (2003): add irrigation canals [ report]
- SSB 5130 (2007): expand hunter access [ report]
- SB 5215 (2007): allow charge to cover admin costs [ report]
- Swinehart v. City of Spokane, 145 Wn. App. 836 (2008)
- SB 5067 (2009): expand hunter access [ report]
- SSB 5069 (2009): clarify protection [ report]
- SSB 5422 (2009): use under a hydro license [ report]
- Van Scoik v. DNR, 149 Wn. App. 328 (2009)
- Superior knowledge
- History
- Restatement: new definitions adopted (1998)
- Washington Product Liability Act: RCW 7.72 (L 81, 88, 91)
- Product misuse
- Parties
- Defenses
- Economic losses
- Disclaimers
- Design defects and duty to warn
- Anderson v. Weslo, 79 Wn. App. 829 (1995)
- Hyjek v. Anthony, 133 Wn. 2d 414 (1997)
- McCoy v. American Suzuki, 136 Wn. 2d 350 (1998)
- Soproni v. Polygon (1999)
- Hiner v. Bridgestone, 138 Wn. 2d 248 (1999)
- Pagnotta v. Beall, 99 Wn. App. 28 (2000)
- Ruiz-Guzman v. Amvac, 141 Wn. 2d 493 (2000)
- Esparza v. Skyreach, 103 Wn. App. 916 (2000)
- Thongchoom v. Graco, 117 Wn. App. 299 (2003)
- Higgins v. Intex, 123 Wn. App. 821 (2004)
- Simonetta v. Viad, 165 Wn. 2d 341 (2009)
- Braaten v. Saberhagen, 165 Wn. 2d 373 (2009)
- Government-furnished designs
- Sellers of services
- Future
- Compensation
- Limit on non-economic damages unconstitutional in WA
- Sofie v. Fibreboard, 112 Wn. 2d 636 (1989)
- HB 1423 (1995): $500,000 limit
- Limit on non-economic damages unconstitutional in WA
- Collateral source
- Punitive damages
- Attorneys’ fees
- Interest
“practice” licensing [