This Comment examines Washington's application of the design defect consumer expectations test. Washington courts have been inconsistent during the recent transition in products liability law. A case in point is Conner v. Skagit Corp.," in which the plaintiff was allowed to proceed with a design defect cause of action while offering proof of only one factor from the consumer expectations test. Accordingly, this Comment suggests that design defect plaintiffs must offer proof of multiple factors that relate to the issue of defectiveness and reasonableness. This proposal will be discussed in light of regional and national products liability theory and Washington's new statute, as well as the policies that justify strict liability in design defect litigation.

Included in

Torts Commons