Rublee v. Carrier Corp.

YU, J. (dissenting)

¶ 45 I am concerned with our adoption of an archaic feature of product liability law in *1220order to compensate the plaintiff for claims already allowed under modem product liability standards. I agree with the majority that, in the right case, we should adopt the "apparent manufacturer" doctrine from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 400 (Am. Law Inst. 1965). I also agree that the "objective reliance" test is the correct test under Washington law. I disagree, however, with the way the majority has applied that test here.

¶ 46 While compensation for injuries caused by products…