Facts: Respondent Ronald Lunsford filed suit against petitioner Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. in the Superior Court for King County after developing mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos while working with insulation products produced by Saberhagen Holdings’ predecessor in interest. The trial court granted Saberhagen Holdings’ motion for summary judgment on Lunsford’s strict product liability claim, holding that the Supreme Court of Washington’s application of strict product liability to manufacturers in Ulmer v. Ford Motor Company and Seattle First National Bank v. Tabert did not apply retroactively to Lunsford’s claim. Upon appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment to Saberhagen Holdings, ruling that the Supreme Court of Washington’s decision in Robinson v. Seattle had not been reversed or limited and required retroactive application of strict product liability to Lunsford’s claim. Saberhagen Holdings appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.
Question(s): Has the Supreme Court of Washington reversed or limited its holding in Robinson v. Seattle?
If not, does Robinson require the retroactive application of strict product liability to Lunsford’s claim?
Conclusion: Justice Fairhurst’s opinion for the Court affirmed the Washington Court of Appeals, concluding that the Court’s subsequent decisions relating to the retroactive application of new rules had not reversed or in any way limited its earlier holding in Robinson that newly promulgated rules apply retroactively and that Robinson remained good law. Thus, the Court held that strict product liability applied retroactively to Lunsford’s claim and remanded the case.
Docket No. 80728-1 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 57293-8)
Petitioner: Saberhagen Holdings
Respondent: Lunsford
Briefs:
- Amici of CLJ, Et Al.
- Amicus of Schroeter Goldmark and Bender
- Amicus of Schroeter Goldmark and Bender Dated 10-9-08
- Answer to Petition for Review
- Appellants Brief
- Lunsford Supplemental Brief
- Petition for Review
- Petitioner Saberhagen's 2nd Statement of Additional Authority
- Petitioner Supplemental Brief
- Petitioner's Response to Brief of Schroeter Et Al Amicus
- Reply
- Reply to Answer to Petition for Review
- Respondent Brief
- Respondents Answer to Amici
- Response to Amici CLJ, Et Al
- Response to WSTLA Amicus
- Saberhagen's Statement of Additional Authority
- Statement of Additional Authority
- WSTLA Amicus
Argument: Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:00am
[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]
Audio: Washington Supreme Court
Decided: Thursday, June 4th, 2009
Prevailing Party: Lunsford (Respondent)
Vote: 9-0
Citation: Pending
Alexander
Johnson
Madsen
Sanders
Chambers
Owens
Fairhurst
Johnson
Stephens
Opinion
Concurrence
Note: We post only slip opinion(s) as published at the time of the decision. Please consult Washington Reports printed volumes for the opinion(s) in their final form.