Abstract
This Note criticizes Pfeifer's incomplete resolution of the apparent conflict between Wash. Rev. Code §§ 4.16.300-.320 and § 353 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts and calls for a reconsideration of the case. The Note is premised on the general validity of statutes of repose and the merit of the policies that they promote. The Note first reviews briefly the development of statutes of repose generally, how they operate, and how courts in Washington and in other jurisdictions have applied them. It then analyzes the development of the Restatement's § 353 and its policy. Next, it examines the Pfeifer court's resolution of the rules conflict, its rationale, and the possible effects of applying the Pfeifer holding to the building industry. This Note asserts that the Washington Supreme Court could have resolved Pfeifer's issues in a manner more consistent with the purpose of the statute.
Recommended Citation
Peter Sandomire, What Shelter Remains for Builder/Vendors Under RCW 4.16.300-320 After Pfeifer v. Bellingham?, 14 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 183 (1990).
