Comment, “Product Liability and Food in Washington State: What Constitutes Manufacturing?,” Seattle University Law Review, Spring 2009
This student-authored article, prepared with the assistance of an attorney from the office of food litigator William Marler, discusses the inconsistent interpretations Washington courts have given to the definition of “manufacturer” in the state’s product liability statute. The issue is critical in foodborne illness cases because those food sellers not deemed to be manufacturers can be held liable for negligence only, which requires conduct-related proof of culpability, and not under the strict liability regime, which does not. According to the author, “without consistent statutory interpretations, both food producers and consumers face unpredictable trial outcomes and costly litigation.”
The author recommends the application of “a test that assesses manufacturer liability not only by the apparent physical changes an entity makes to a product, but also by the increased monetary value the entity adds to the product.” This “value-added” test could, according to the author, include simply washing and bagging produce or adding a logo or company brand to which “goodwill” is attached.
