King County, Washington makes its first ever appearance on the Judicial Hellholes® list thanks to judges’ proclivity for unfair group trials, allowing junk science, and substitution of the laws of other states for Washington law when favorable to plaintiffs. The Washington Supreme Court has an important opportunity to rein in the lower court and signal to King County that these abuses will not stand.
Over the past 5 years, King County trials in which parents, teachers, and students alleged their health conditions stemmed from exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from aging fluorescent light fixtures at the Sky Valley Education Center have resulted in over $1.7 billion in damages. The education center installed these lights decades ago, well before PCBs were banned, and Monsanto spinoff Pharmacia has not produced PCBs for a half-century. The companies have disputed the contention that PCB exposure is the source of the plaintiffs’ health problems and have indicated that the school disregarded repeated warnings to retrofit the lights.
In these actions, King County courts engaged in the controversial and highly prejudicial practice of holding group trials that each include several plaintiffs. This approach can mislead jurors to believe that if multiple people claim that a business’s product or conduct injured them, it is likely to be true. Plaintiffs’ lawyers can also use this tactic to hide weak cases among stronger ones or push jurors to set aside doubts about whether exposure tied to a substance or product, and not some other factor, actually caused a particular plaintiff’s medical condition. Multi-plaintiff trials not only significantly increase the likelihood of a plaintiff’s verdict, but also lead to substantially higher awards. It can also result in juries giving similar awards to plaintiffs with significantly different injuries. The approach sacrifices due process in the name of efficiency.
The latest December 2023 trial, which combined the claims of seven former students and parent volunteers, resulted in an $857 million verdict. The verdict, which was the seventh-highest of any civil case in the nation that year, included an award of $112 million in punitive damages to each plaintiff. This April, the trial court reduced that verdict to a still-massive $438 million, after finding the punitive damage award unconstitutionally excessive. Earlier multi-plaintiff PCB trials in King County resulted in verdicts of $165 million to six teachers and a custodian in November 2023; $72 million to two plaintiffs but deadlocking on five other plaintiffs in July 2023; $82 million to one of four plaintiffs in December 2022; $275 million to 10 students in October 2022; $62 million to four students, two parents, and another adult in November 2021; and $185 million to three teachers in July 2021. In these cases, the plaintiffs blamed a myriad of health problems on PCB exposure.
At the time of publication of this paper another trial was underway—this one including 15 plaintiffs. In their opening argument, the plaintiffs’ lawyers told the King County jury they would ask for $750 million for compensatory damages – $30 million to $50 million per plaintiff – plus punitive damages.
Washington ranked third among states for nuclear verdicts® “per capita” in personal injury and wrongful death cases during a recent ten-year period, according to a U.S. Chamber of Commerce study, largely because of verdicts from trials of PCB exposure cases in the King County Superior Court. King County’s nuclear verdicts® have also come in other areas. This year, for example, trip-and-fall and bicycle accidents trials in King County resulted in awards of $13.1 million and $16 million, respectively.
Another central issue in these cases is the use of “junk science” to establish causation. Plaintiffs’ expert Kevin Coghlan relied on novel methods to estimate historical PCB concentrations at the educational center. In May 2024, the Washington Court of Appeals, in the first of these cases to reach a decision on appeal, reversed the $185 million verdict in Erickson v. Pharmacia. The appellate court found that the trial court should have excluded Mr. Coghlan’s testimony because his approach was “novel,” “not generally accepted in the scientific community,” not used by other scientists, and not supported by “any peer-reviewed literature.”
This decision spotlights the critical need for courts to enforce rigorous standards for scientific evidence, especially in cases where speculative models drive damages. The pending appeals of other verdicts in other cases attributing medical conditions to PCB exposure raise similar concerns about the validity of Coghlan’s methods. Nevertheless, in the latest trial, King County Superior Court Judge Michael Ryan admitted Mr. Coghlan’s testimony, despite the Erickson ruling, stating that “no one knows” how the Court of Appeals would rule today in a different case.
Although the plaintiffs’ alleged exposure to PCBs occurred in a school located in a Seattle suburb, the King County court applied favorable aspects of Missouri law, rather than Washington law, to the claims.
For example, the Washington Product Liability Act (WPLA) includes a statute of repose, a crucial protection limiting liability for old products. This law states that a product seller is not liable for injuries that occur after the product’s “useful safe life” has ended. The statute of repose includes a rebuttable presumption that if the harm was caused more than 12 years after delivery, the useful safe life has expired. The plaintiffs, however, argued that Missouri law, which has no statute of repose for product liability claims, should apply since the chemicals at issue were manufactured in Missouri and the manufacturer’s principal place of business was in Missouri. The trial court agreed.
In its ruling in Erickson, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the trial court erred in not applying Washington’s statute of repose to the lawsuits. The statute of repose, the Court of Appeals observed, is “fundamental to the existence of a claim” and protects industries from excessive litigation while preserving the right of consumers to seek redress for injuries caused by unsafe products. The law provides certainty to product manufacturers and sellers by cutting off long-term liability risks for product-related claims.
In addition, some may question how King County trials are resulting in massive punitive damage awards when punitive damages are not recoverable under Washington law unless expressly authorized by statute. Since the WPLA does not expressly authorize punitive damages, they are not available in product liability claims under Washington law. Yet, the trial court accepted the plaintiffs’ invitation to circumvent this restriction and make punitive damages available by applying Missouri law to the claims. While the Court of Appeals in Erickson found that Washington’s statute of repose applies, it reached a different conclusion with regard to punitive damages. It found that Missouri’s punitive damage law could apply, reasoning that Missouri has a greater interest than Washington in punishing Missouri-based companies if they show indifference or conscious disregard for the safety of others. Still, the appellate court found that Missouri law did not impose a post-sale duty to warn on manufacturers, so punitive damages would not be available on that claim.
The Washington Supreme Court’s upcoming review of expert evidence standards, the applicability of the statute of repose, and availability of punitive damages in Erickson is a critical test of the state’s commitment to maintaining a balanced civil justice system.
Recent court rulings signal a troubling shift toward expanding duty-of-care obligations in Washington, a trend that may con- tribute to a rise of litigation targeting entities for the criminal acts of third parties.
Generally, people and businesses have no legal duty to aid or protect others from harm. This general rule also means that that there is no broad legal duty to protect others from the wrongful or criminal conduct of third parties. One exception, however, is when there is a “special relationship” between the actor and the perpetrator or between the actor and the plaintiff/victim.
In a January 2024 decision, the Washington Supreme Court considered whether universities owe a special duty to protect students from foreseeable harm by other students. The Court held in that case, Barlow v. State of Washington, that the University had such a duty of care, but limited the duty to prevent on-campus incidents or incidents under the university’s control, noting that universities lack the type of extensive control over students typically seen in K-12 settings.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit relied on this Washington Supreme Court decision in August 2024, when it ruled that, under Washington law, rideshare companies, such as Uber, have a duty to drivers to use reasonable care when matching them with riders. In Drammeh v. Uber Technologies Inc., the Court found that the relationship between Uber and its drivers had the “traits of dependence and control” necessary to qualify as a special relationship.
Specifically, the majority found that drivers entrust Uber with their safety because Uber controls “the verification methods of drivers and riders” and “what information to make available to each respective party.” As a result, Uber was subject to liability after a carjacker murdered a driver, even when the carjacker requested the ride using a fake account and a burner phone.
Together, Barlow and Drammeh illustrate the broader push in Washington to test and expand duty- of-care boundaries, challenging an established limit on liability for the acts of third parties. This trend could affect businesses and other institutions by subjecting them to lawsuits for unanticipated and possibly unavoidable acts of criminals, escalating liability risks for entities operating in King County and beyond.
On January 6, 2025, ExxonMobil filed a lawsuit against California Attorney General Robert Bonta in Texas federal court in response
Judicial Hellholes
Make America Healthy Again, a battle cry for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, is an important idea that is now being
Judicial Hellholes
The changes to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 last year were supposed to be a watershed moment for expert testimony
Judicial Hellholes