Sahlie v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., JOHNS-MANVILLE
| Decision Date | 12 May 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 48982-3,JOHNS-MANVILLE,48982-3 |
| Citation | 99 Wn.2d 550,663 P.2d 473 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | ; Jo Ann Rosselot, as personal representative for the Estate of James E. Rosselot, Deceased; George Mabrey and Jane Doe Mabrey, husband and wife; William E. Long and Jane Doe Long, husband and wife; Benjamin Hartung and Jane Doe Hartung, husband and wife; Lorna Shaw, as personal representative for the Estate of Jack Krall, Deceased; Lucille Bergin, individually, and as personal representative for the Estate of John Bergin, Deceased; Ray Mewes and Jane Doe Mewes, husband and wife; Leonard Greene and Jane Doe Greene, husband and wife; Paul G. Evans and Jane Doe Evans, husband and wife; Walter T. Mabrey and Jane Doe Mabrey, husband and wife; Leroy Nicholas and Jane Doe Nicholas, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v.SALES CORPORATION, a foreign corporation; Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, a foreign corporation; Armstrong Cork Company, a foreign corporation; Raybestos Manhattan, Inc., a foreign corporation; Fibreboard Corporation, a foreign corporation; Combustion Engineering, a foreign corporation; Eagle Picher Industries, Inc., a foreign corporation; The Flintkote Company, a foreign corporation; Keene Corporation, a foreign corporation; Owens-Illinois Glass Company, a foreign corporation; The Celotex Corporation, a foreign corporation; American Asbestos Textile Corporation, a/k/a Amatex, a foreign corporation; Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, a foreign corporation; Union Asbestos & Rubber Company, a/k/a Unarco Industries, Inc., a foreign corporation, Defendants. Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc |
James P. Connelly, Winston & Cashatt, and Steven A. Crumb, Spokane, for plaintiffs.
Stafford, Frey & Mertel by John G. Cooper, Seattle, for defendant Fibreboard Corp.
Garvey, Schubert, Adams & Barer by Stuart P. Hennessey and Christine E. Dinsdale, Seattle, for defendant Pittsburgh Corning Corp.
Hennings, Maltman, Weber & Reed, Douglass A. North, Morrow, Longfelder, Tinker & Kidman, Gregg L. Tinker, Seattle, amicus curiae, for plaintiffs.
This case requires us to consider the application to a products liability action of the discovery rule announced in Ohler v. Tacoma General Hosp., 92 Wash.2d 507, 598 P.2d 1358 (1979). The issue has been certified to us pursuant to RCW 2.60.020 by the federal court for the Eastern District of Washington. The District Court has stipulated the following facts on which it asks us to resolve this issue.
This is a products liability action for personal injuries. Plaintiff George Mabrey started working around asbestos products in 1939. Thereafter, with occasional intervals, he worked with and around asbestos products continually until his retirement in 1978.
In 1970 plaintiff Mabrey learned that he was suffering from a condition known as asbestosis, and knew at that time the cause of his condition, i.e., exposure to asbestos products. He was generally aware of the identity of the manufacturers of the asbestos products with which he worked.
Plaintiff did not discover until 1980, when he consulted with legal counsel, that the manufacturers of the various asbestos products to which he had been exposed might have committed wrongful acts, been negligent, or breached legal duties, which proximately caused his asbestos-related condition; or that he might have a claim for damages against the defendants.
The issue certified on these facts is this:
Under the law of the State of Washington, (prior to the effective date of the Washington Tort Reform Act) as pronounced in Ohler v. Tacoma General Hosp., 92 Wash.2d 507, 598 P.2d 1358 (1979), did the plaintiff's cause of action accrue when he learned he was suffering from asbestosis and that it was caused by exposure to asbestos products; or did the statute of limitations commence to run only when the plaintiff learned that his legal rights were violated and that he had a legal cause of action against the defendants?
Neither of the alternatives proposed in this question correctly characterizes the holding in Ohler. Under Ohler, the cause of action in a products liability case accrues when the plaintiff discovers or ought to have discovered all the essential elements of his possible cause of action. In an action against the seller of a product based on the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402 A (1965) () there are three such essential elements: first, that the plaintiff user or consumer suffers physical harm from a product which has a defective condition making it unreasonably dangerous; second, that the defendant seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product; and third, that the product is expected to and does reach the plaintiff without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold. Under Ohler, the cause of action does not accrue until the plaintiff discovers or ought to have discovered all three of these elements.
In Ohler, we considered the application of the discovery rule to two distinct causes of action: one for medical malpractice and the other for products liability. The plaintiff in Ohler was blinded by excessive concentrations of oxygen in the incubator in which she was placed after her birth. She knew from an early age that her blindness was caused by an excess of oxygen, but did not discover until she was 21 that the excess of oxygen was possibly attributable to the wrongful conduct of the hospital and the manufacturer of the incubator. She instituted the actions when she was 22. This court held that neither action was barred by the statute of limitation.
We first considered the malpractice action and held that it did not accrue until the plaintiff knew or should have known that her blindness was the result of the hospital's breach of duty.
We hold that appellant's claim against Tacoma General did not accrue until she discovered or reasonably should have discovered all of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation
...the offending company, of inaccurate regulatory reports. 96 Wash.2d at 87, 633 P.2d 1329. The second is Sahlie v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 99 Wash.2d 550, 551, 663 P.2d 473 (1983), in which the plaintiff was permitted to proceed with a personal injury action even though the first exposur......
-
Lockwood v. AC & S, Inc.
...claim arose before the effective date of the 1981 Tort Reform Act, codified at RCW 7.72.010 et seq. See Sahlie v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 99 Wash.2d 550, 663 P.2d 473 (1983). The provisions in RCW 7.72.030(1)(b), (c) and RCW 7.72.050, which permit state of the art evidence and the state......
-
Orear v. International Paint Co., 24604-6-I
... ... Johns-Manville Corp., 42 Wash.App. 620, 625, 712 P.2d 881 (1986), aff'd, ... (Emphasis added). Sahlie v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 99 Wash.2d 550, 552, 663 ... ...
-
Green v. A.P.C. (American Pharmaceutical Co.)
... ... Gibbons, 38 Wash.App. 343, 685 P.2d 619 (1984); Sahlie v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 99 Wash.2d 550, 663 P.2d 473 ... ...
-
Legislative History in Washington
...Select Committee on Tort Reform and Product Liability Reform Final Report) with Sahlie v. Johns-Manville Corp., 99 Wash. 2d 550, 554, 663 P.2d 473, 475 (1983) (citing the report of the same committee in the Senate 96. See State v. Turner, 98 Wash. 2d 731, 737, 658 P.2d 658, 661-62 (1983) ("......
-
Balancing the Statute of Limitations and the Discovery Rule: Some Victims of Incestuous Abuse Are Denied Access to Washington Courts-tyson v. Tyson
...overexposure to oxygen in incubator caused objective manifestation of blindness); Sahlie v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 99 Wash. 2d 550, 663 P.2d 473 (1983) (evidence that continuous exposure to asbestos products for almost forty years caused asbestosis). 17. Tyson, 107 Wash. 2d at 77, 727 ......