Omstead v. Brader Heaters, Inc.
| Decision Date | 08 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 42114,42114 |
| Citation | 497 P.2d 1310,80 Wn.2d 720 |
| Parties | Frank B. OMSTEAD, Respondent, v. BRADER HEATERS, INC., et al., Respondents, Kubota Iron and Machinery Works, Ltd., Petitioner. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Sherwood, Tugman, Gose & Reser, William M. Tugman, Walla Walla, Springer, Cornman & King, Noel Cornman, Los Angeles, Cal., Gerson F. Goldsmith, Portland, Or., for petitioner.
Monheimer, Schermer, Van Frederberg & Smith, Melville Monheimer, Seattle, Leavy, Taber, Schultz & Bergdahl, John G. Schultz, Pasco, Minnick, Hahner & Hubbard R. F. Monahan, Walla Walla, Halverson, Applegate, McDonald, Bond, Grahn & Wiehl, J. S. Applegate, Yakima, for respondent.
This is a case involving five consolidated causes of action which arose when damages totaling approximately $374,749.62, were alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff orchardists due to the failure of their new orchard heating systems, which were purchased from the defendant (respondent), Brader Heaters, Inc., a Washington corporation. The plaintiffs claim that the failure, resulting in a crop loss by frost, was caused by defective polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe alleged to have been defectively manufactured by the defendant (petitioner), Kubota Iron and Machinery Works, Ltd. (a Japanese corporation hereafter referred to as Kubota). The pleadings also allege negligent misrepresentations by the defendants, negligence in the manufacture and sale of the Kubota PVC pipe and the orchard heating system, and breach of an implied warranty.
All five actions were consolidated with the Benton County action of the plaintiff (respondent), Frank B. Omstead. Kubota was served in Japan, both by registered mail and by personal service, at its office in Osaka, Japan. Service of process is not an issue in this case.
Kubota moved the trial court to quash service and dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction, which motion was granted. On October 22, 1970, this court granted writ of certiorari to review the order of the trial court. Subsequently, the matter was transferred to Division Two of the Court of Appeals which, on July 9, 1971, in an extensive and exhaustive opinion by Judge Armstrong and concurred in by the other members of that division, reversed the decision of the trial court and reinstated Kubota as a party defendant, holding that the courts of this state have jurisdiction over Kubota under RCW 4.28.185, our long-arm statute. See Omstead v. Brader Heaters, Inc., 5...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Au Optronics Corp.
...71 Wash.2d 679, 684, 430 P.2d 600 (1967); Omstead v. Brader Heaters, Inc., 5 Wash.App. 258, 269–71, 487 P.2d 234 (1971), aff'd,80 Wash.2d 720, 497 P.2d 1310 (1972); Reader's Digest Ass'n, 81 Wash.2d at 276–78, 501 P.2d 290; Grange, 110 Wash.2d at 761, 757 P.2d 933. 58.110 Wash.2d 752, 761, ......
-
Scott Fetzer Co., Kirby Co. Div. v. Weeks
...as a specific class is amply set forth in [Omstead v. Brader Heaters, Inc., 5 Wash.App. 258, 487 P.2d 234 (1971), adopted in 80 Wash.2d 720, 497 P.2d 1310 (1972) ]. The action by the legislature was intended to bring the statute within the traditional notions of "fair play and substantial j......
-
Hapner v. Rolf Brauchli, Inc., Docket No. 58977
...that hardship to local consumers." Omstead v. Brader Heaters, Inc., 5 Wash.App. 258, 487 P.2d 234, 242-243 (1971), Aff'd 80 Wash.2d 720, 497 P.2d 1310 (1972). (Opinion of the Court of Appeals adopted as opinion of the Supreme Accordingly, we hold that when a nonresident manufacturer places ......
-
International Sales & Lease, Inc. v. Seven Bar Flying Service, Inc.
...Wash.App. 52, 480 P.2d 247 (1971); Deutsch v. West Coast Machinery Co., 80 Wash.2d 707, 497 P.2d 1311 (1972); Omstead v. Brader Heaters, Inc., 80 Wash.2d 720, 497 P.2d 1310 (1972); State v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, 81 Wash.2d 259, 501 P.2d 290 (1972); Smith v. York Food Machinery Co., 81 Wash......