Anna Chester v. Deep Roots Tatoo & Body Modification

Court of Appeals of Washington
371 P.3d 113, 193 Wash. App. 147 (2016)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Washington state regulations governing the tattoo industry do not create a statutory duty for tattoo artists to use sterile ink. Under the common law, a tattoo artist's duty of reasonable care does not extend to ensuring that pre-packaged, commercially distributed ink is sterile, particularly when sterile ink is not readily available or reliably labeled and artists lack the means to test or sterilize it.

Facts:

Bonnie Gillson, a tattoo artist at Deep Roots Alderwood LLC, applied a tattoo to Anna Chester using 'One' brand black ink.
Gillson had purchased the ink from Kingpin Tattoo Supply, a regular distributor, and had used the same brand for a year and a half without incident.
An investigation by King County Public Health later determined that the specific bottle of ink used on Chester had been contaminated with bacteria during the manufacturing process.
After being tattooed, Chester suffered a serious bacterial infection that aggravated an underlying chronic kidney disease.
Chester's infection ultimately led to kidney failure, requiring her to begin dialysis.

Procedural Posture:

Anna Chester filed a lawsuit against Bonnie Gillson and Deep Roots Alderwood LLC in a Washington trial court, asserting claims of product liability and negligence.
Chester conceded the dismissal of her product liability claims against Gillson and Deep Roots.
The defendants, Gillson and Deep Roots, moved for summary judgment on Chester's remaining negligence claims.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, ruling as a matter of law that Chester had failed to establish the essential elements of negligence.
Chester, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Court of Appeals of Washington.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a tattoo artist have a legal duty, under either Washington state regulations or the common law standard of reasonable care, to use sterile ink when tattooing a client?

Opinions:

Majority - Spearman, J.

No. Neither Washington regulations nor the common law imposes a duty on tattoo artists to use sterile ink. The court examined the relevant Washington Administrative Code (WAC) regulations and found they meticulously detail sterilization requirements for instruments like needles but are silent on a requirement for sterile ink. The court reasoned that this specific omission, within a detailed regulatory scheme, indicates the regulators did not intend to impose such a duty under the general clause requiring 'sterile instruments and aseptic techniques.' Regarding common law negligence, the court distinguished this case from Helling v. Carey, finding that Chester failed to show that sterile ink was reliably available or that artists had a practical means to test or sterilize ink themselves. Therefore, the burden on the artist to guarantee ink sterility was too high to be included within the duty of reasonable care.

Analysis:

This decision clarifies the scope of a tattoo artist's duty of care in Washington, limiting it to the aspects of the procedure they can reasonably control. It establishes that liability for injuries from contaminated, pre-packaged consumables like ink lies with the manufacturer or distributor, not the service provider who uses the product in good faith. This precedent protects service professionals from liability for latent defects in sealed commercial products, shaping how courts will analyze duty and breach in similar contexts where a professional relies on supplies from a third party.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Anna Chester v. Deep Roots Tatoo & Body Modification (2016)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature