Ruiz-Guzman v. Amvac Chemical Corp.
7 P.3d 795, 141 Wash. 2d 493, 2000 Wash. LEXIS 487 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Washington Product Liability Act (WPLA), a plaintiff may establish a design defect claim under the risk-utility test by showing that a different, safer product could serve the same purpose. A manufacturer may defend such a claim by proving its product is "unavoidably unsafe," which requires a case-by-case showing that the product's social utility greatly outweighs its inherent risks and that no safer alternatives exist to achieve its benefits.
Facts:
- In the summer of 1993, Ricardo Ruiz-Guzman, Martin Martinez, and Miguel Farias were farmworkers for apple growers in Washington.
- Until 1993, growers had used a pesticide called Phosphamidon to control aphids, but its manufacturer did not renew its federal registration, making it unavailable.
- Amvac Chemical Corporation was informed by its distributor, Wilbur-Ellis Company, that Washington apple growers needed a replacement for Phosphamidon.
- Amvac manufactured Phosdrin, a pesticide previously used on other crops, and began promoting its use in Washington apple orchards.
- To manage Phosdrin's toxicity, Amvac worked with the Washington State Department of Agriculture to develop additional emergency rules for its use.
- In July 1993, after mixing, loading, or applying Phosdrin, Ruiz-Guzman, Martinez, and Farias all separately developed symptoms and were diagnosed with toxic reactions to organophosphates.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs (Ruiz-Guzman, et al.) sued the defendants (Amvac Chemical Corp. and Wilbur-Ellis) in King County Superior Court, a state trial court.
- The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, a federal court of first instance.
- The U.S. District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the summary judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a federal intermediate appellate court.
- The Ninth Circuit certified two unresolved questions of state law to the Supreme Court 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:
Under Washington law, 1) may a plaintiff alleging a design defect prove the existence of a feasible alternative design by pointing to a different, safer product on the market, and 2) can a pesticide qualify as an "unavoidably unsafe product," shielding its manufacturer from strict liability under comment k to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A?
Opinions:
Majority - Bridge, J.
Yes, to both questions. Under the Washington Product Liability Act (WPLA), a plaintiff may rely upon an alternative product to establish a design defect, and a pesticide can qualify as an unavoidably unsafe product under certain conditions. First, the WPLA's risk-utility test allows for comparison with 'a' product, not just a modification of 'the' product, meaning a plaintiff can show a design defect by demonstrating that another commercially available product could serve the same function more safely. The court relied on precedent like Lamon v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., which allowed comparison of different manufacturers' products, and reasoned it would be an 'onerous burden' to require plaintiffs to prove how the defendant's specific chemical formula could be altered. Second, a pesticide can be deemed 'unavoidably unsafe' under comment k, but this is not a blanket exemption. The manufacturer must pass a product-by-product test showing the product is necessary and its social utility greatly outweighs its risks, especially considering whether safer alternatives exist to achieve the same purpose. This determination is a question of fact for the jury.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Talmadge, J.
Yes, to the first question, but no to the second. While a plaintiff may show a design defect by pointing to a practical and feasible alternative product, the court should not incorporate the 'unavoidably unsafe' doctrine of comment k into Washington law. The WPLA statute itself establishes a negligence-based risk-utility balancing test for design defect claims. This statutory test already allows a manufacturer to argue that a product's utility justifies its risks. The legislature considered and rejected adopting a separate provision for unavoidably unsafe products when it enacted the WPLA, making the court's adoption of comment k a judicial overreach that contradicts legislative intent and unnecessarily complicates the analysis.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies Washington's design defect jurisprudence by broadening how a plaintiff can satisfy the risk-utility test. By allowing proof of an alternative design via a completely different product, the court lowers the barrier for plaintiffs, shifting the focus from re-engineering the defendant's product to evaluating safer market alternatives for the same function. Furthermore, the court establishes a stringent, fact-intensive test for the 'unavoidably unsafe' defense for non-medical products, requiring a case-by-case analysis of social utility versus risk. This holding prevents a blanket immunity for entire categories of inherently dangerous products like pesticides and ensures that the defense is reserved for products that are truly necessary and for which no safer alternative exists.
Unlock the full brief for Ruiz-Guzman v. Amvac Chemical Corp.