HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 1903

BYRepresentatives Appelwick, P. King, Wineberry, Belcher, Leonard, Crane, Rector, Pruitt, Inslee and Padden

Changing provisions relating to civil liability.

House Committe on Judiciary

Majority Report:  The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (10)

      Signed by Representatives Appelwick, Chair; Crane, Vice Chair; Padden, Ranking Republican Member; Belcher, Dellwo, Inslee, Locke, R. Meyers, H. Myers, and Wineberry.

Minority Report:  Do not pass.  (8)

      Signed by Representatives Brough, Hargrove, Moyer, Patrick, Schmidt, Scott, D. Sommers and Tate.

House Staff:Pat Shelledy (786-7149)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY FEBRUARY 28, 1989

BACKGROUND:

APPORTIONMENT OF DAMAGES:  The 1986 Tort Reform Act substantially changed joint and several liability provisions in tort law.  Prior law provided that if more than one party was liable to a plaintiff on an indivisible claim for the same injury, death, or harm, each party's liability was joint and several with the other responsible parties.

The 1986 act eliminated joint and several liability if the plaintiff was also at fault.  The trier of fact determines each entity's percentage of fault, including entities that may not be identified and that may not be in the lawsuit.  If the plaintiff is at fault, each defendant is liable for those damages attributable to that defendant based on the defendant's percentage of fault.  Joint and several liability still applies in the following cases:  (1) The plaintiff was not at fault.  Joint and several liability extends to those defendants that judgment is entered against for the sum of their proportionate damages.  (2) The parties acted in concert or in an agency relationship.  (3) The cause of action relates to hazardous wastes or solid waste disposal sites, tortious interference with contracts or business relationships, or manufacturing or marketing of a fungible product which causes injury that cannot be attributable to a particular defendant.

INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE:  The 1986 Act also changed the Industrial Insurance law.  Under the prior law, the Department of Labor and Industries had a lien on any amount the injured party recovered from a third party to the extent that the Department provided insurance to the worker for the injury.  Under the tort reform act, if an employee or employer is at fault, the Department loses its lien against the judgment against the third party.  The Department pays the worker as if no third party recovery exists.

SUMMARY:

SUBSTITUTE BILL:

APPORTIONMENT OF DAMAGES:  The 1986 Tort Reform Act section on apportionment of damages is repealed.  Joint and several liability is restored except that a party whose percentage of fault is less than the plaintiff's is liable to the plaintiff for the party's percentage.  Liability is joint and several in cases involving hazardous waste or solid waste disposal sites, manufacturing cases where the injury cannot be attributable to one party, and industrial insurance cases.  In manufacturing cases, liability will be determined on a market-share basis.  In all cases, if any part of the contribution is uncollectible, the court can reallocate the percentage of the total to the parties within one year of the judgment.

INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE:  The amendment to the 1986 tort reform act restores the law that enabled the Department of Labor and Industries to impose a lien against a third party judgment.

SUBSTITUTE BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL:  A provision is stricken that gave governmental entities greater protection from liability than non-governmental entities.

Fiscal Note:      Not Requested.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Keith Kessler, WSTLA.

House Committee - Testified Against:      Thomas McLaughlin, Boeing; Michael Tardif, Attorney General; Sonya Alexander, City of Bellevue; Bob Seeber, Restaurant Association; Lewis Leigh, Washington Cities Insurance Authority; Colin Sprague, Association of Washington Businesses.

House Committee - Testimony For:    Restoring joint and several liability increases protection for the innocent injured plaintiff.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      The change will increase costs to business, governments and the consumer.  Current law is fair and should be retained for a longer period to realize its benefits.