Corr v. Willamette Industries, Inc.
Washington Supreme Court
1DissentDore, J.
(dissenting) — The majority concedes that this action is indistinguishable from the circumstances supporting imposition of dual persona liability in the only three decisions which have addressed this precise issue. See Billy v. Consolidated Mach. Tool Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 152, 412 N.E.2d 934, 432 N.Y.S.2d 879 (1980); Schweiner v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 120 Wis. 2d 344, 354 N.W.2d 767 (Ct. App. 1984); Kimzey v. Interpace Corp., 10 Kan. App. 2d 165, 694 P.2d 907 (1985). The majority nonetheless holds that this is not the proper case for adoption of the dual persona doctrine and decides the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Billy v. Consolidated Machine Tool Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Schweiner v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1984
- Kimzey v. Interpace Corp.Court of Appeals of Kansas · 1985
- Provost v. Puget Sound Power & Light Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1985
- Spencer v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1985