Legal Opinion
Anna Chester v. Deep Roots Tatoo & Body Modification
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided April 4, 2016No. 73225-1-IPublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the CourtSpearman, J.
¶1 — Anna Chester suffered an adverse reaction after being tattooed with ink that appears to have been contaminated with bacteria when the tattoo artist received it from the distributor. Chester brought negligence claims against the tattoo artist and the tattoo parlor, arguing that they had a duty to use sterile ink. The trial court dismissed her claims on summary judgment, and Chester appeals. We affirm because neither the regulations governing the tattoo industry nor the common law imposes a duty to use sterile ink.
FACTS
¶2 Bonnie Gillson, a tattoo artist, applied a tattoo to Anna Chester at…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Department of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, L.L.C.Washington Supreme Court · 2002
- State, Dept. of Ecology v. Campbell & GwinnWashington Supreme Court · 2002
- Young v. Key Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1989
- State v. J.P.Washington Supreme Court · 2003
- Folsom v. Burger KingWashington Supreme Court · 1998
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Chester v. Deep Roots Tattoo & Body ModificationWashington Supreme Court · 2016