Legal Opinion

Singh v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp.

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided July 6, 2009No. 61823-7-IPublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGrosse, J.

¶1 Washington State follows the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws’ most significant relationship test in determining which state’s law applies to a given issue. Here, the plaintiff underwent a heart transplant after his heart was burned as a result of a defective heart monitor used during surgery in a Washington hospital. The heart monitor was developed by a California-based company that knew of the defect but failed to correct the defect or warn the parties of the potential problem.

¶2 Even though Washington has a strong policy against punitive damages, it has no interest in protecting…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Davis v. Globe MacHine Manufacturing Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Keller v. City of SpokaneWashington Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Johnson v. Spider Staging Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Rice v. Dow Chemical Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Bodin v. City of StanwoodWashington Supreme Court · 1996

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. FutureSelect Portfolio Management, Inc. v. Tremont Group Holdings, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2013
  2. State v. BoyleCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
  3. A.O.A. v. RennertDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri · 2018
  4. Bryant v. WyethDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2012
  5. Tanessa Desranleau v. Hyland's, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2019

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API