Washburn v. Beatt Equipment Co.
1992 Wash. LEXIS 280, 120 Wash.2d 246, 840 P.2d 860 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contractor who performs significant fabrication, alteration, and finishing processes to transform unfinished component parts into a new, functional product or system may be deemed a 'manufacturer' and thus be excluded from the protections of the builder's statute of repose.
Facts:
- In 1969, Beatt Equipment Company was subcontracted to construct and install a standby propane fuel system at a Boeing facility.
- Beatt's work involved supplying piping material, welding 20-foot pipe sections together, wrapping and coating the welded joints, and burying the pipeline to create the completed system.
- Evidence indicated Beatt's work did not meet contract specifications or industry standards; it used a cheaper and thinner asphalt coating instead of the specified coal-tar enamel and improperly prepared the pipe before processing.
- These alleged defects made the pipeline system susceptible to corrosion over time.
- The propane system was not put into regular use after its installation.
- On October 15, 1986, Norman Washburn, a Boeing employee, was testing the system for the first time since its installation 17 years prior.
- During the test, the system caught fire and exploded, causing Washburn to suffer severe burns over 70 percent of his body and killing his co-worker, Scottie Holmes.
Procedural Posture:
- Norman and Sharon Washburn filed a lawsuit against Beatt Equipment Company in state trial court.
- The trial court initially granted Beatt's motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing it from the case based on the statute of repose.
- Subsequently, the trial court granted the Washburns' motion to vacate that judgment and reinstated Beatt as a defendant.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- The jury returned special verdicts finding that Beatt was a 'manufacturer' and that its product was not reasonably safe.
- The jury awarded a total of $8 million in damages to the Washburns.
- The trial court reduced the total judgment to $5,670,000 to account for settlements paid by other entities.
- Beatt Equipment Company, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Washington. The Washburns, as cross-appellants, appealed the trial court's calculation of the judgment amount.
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 contractor that assembles, welds, coats, and finishes component pipes to create a functional pipeline system qualify as a 'manufacturer' under the exception to the builder's statute of repose, RCW 4.16.300, thereby preventing the statute from barring a product liability claim arising from the system's failure?
Opinions:
Majority - Brachtenbach, J.
Yes. A contractor's activities can bring it within the definition of a 'manufacturer' for the purposes of the exception to the statute of repose. The court held that there was a sufficient factual basis for the jury to find that Beatt Equipment Company was a manufacturer under the very definition that Beatt itself proposed in the jury instructions. That definition included one who 'produces, makes, fabricates, [or] constructs' a product. The court reasoned that Beatt did more than merely install a pre-made product; it took unfinished and unusable 20-foot pipe sections and, through its own labor and materials (welding, cleaning, priming, coating), transformed them into a finished, usable, and economically valuable pipeline system. These activities squarely fell within the common definitions of 'produce,' 'make,' 'fabricate,' and 'construct,' distinguishing Beatt from a carpenter or electrician who merely assembles already completed and manufactured products.
Concurring - Dolliver, J.
Yes. Although agreeing with the outcome, this opinion disagrees with the majority's reasoning that the case is decided solely because the defendant proposed the jury instruction. The concurrence argues that since the defendant consistently objected to the manufacturer theory in pretrial motions, the instruction did not become the 'law of the case.' The true legal issue is the ambiguous legislative intent behind the manufacturer exception, given the synonymous ordinary meanings of 'construct' (which is protected by the statute) and 'manufacture' (which is not). However, lacking clear legislative guidance on the distinction, the verdict should be upheld because the jury found the defendant was a manufacturer under a definition that comports with the ordinary meaning of the term.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of the 'manufacturer' exception to the Washington builder's statute of repose, preventing construction companies from automatically gaining its protection. The ruling establishes that a contractor's status is determined not by their title but by a functional analysis of their activities. By holding that substantial fabrication and finishing of component parts can constitute manufacturing, the decision broadens potential liability for contractors who do more than simply install pre-made items. This precedent requires courts in future cases to scrutinize the specific work performed by a builder to determine if it crosses the threshold from installation to manufacturing, thereby exposing them to product liability claims long after construction is complete.
Unlock the full brief for Washburn v. Beatt Equipment Co.