But Jones, representing the Sky Valley plaintiffs, said that even if the Erickson ruling is not overturned, the statute of repose determination “is unlikely to result in a complete reversal” of other victories because “the repose issue can be retried without affecting those verdicts.”
The plaintiffs also dispute Monsanto’s contention that the Erickson ruling affects the Mullen-Deland case, pointing to the trial judge’s ruling there that Monsanto failed to prove the alleged harm came after the useful safe life period.
The plaintiffs have also shown in the most recent two trials, which did incorporate the Washington time limit, that they can still beat Monsanto’s defense by arguing to jurors that an exception to the 12-year rule applies.
Under the Washington Product Liability Act’s statute of repose, a product seller may be held liable for harm caused by a product beyond 12 years if the plaintiff demonstrates a product’s useful safe life is longer. A product seller may also be held liable beyond the 12 years if it intentionally misrepresented facts about the product or intentionally concealed information about it — and that conduct caused a plaintiff’s harm.
