Home Table of Contents

WPI 110.05 Government Contract Specification—Defense

6 WAPRAC WPI 110.05Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil

6 Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 110.05 (7th ed.)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
April 2022 Update
Washington State Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions
Part IX. Particularized Standards of Conduct
Chapter 110. Product Liability
WPI 110.05 Government Contract Specification—Defense
[If you find that the injury-causing aspect of the product was, at the time of manufacture, in compliance with a specific mandatory government contract specification relating to design, your verdict shall be for the defendant on claims based upon design.]
[If you find that the injury-causing aspect of the product was, at the time of manufacture, in compliance with a specific mandatory government contract specification relating to warnings, your verdict shall be for the defendant on claims based upon warnings.]
The burden of proving this defense by a preponderance of the evidence is on the defendant.
NOTE ON USE
Use this instruction, along with WPI 110.02 (Manufacturer's Duty—Design) or WPI 110.03 (Manufacturer's Duty to Provide Warnings or Instructions With Product), if there is an issue whether the product complied with a specific mandatory specification developed by the government and imposed upon the contractor as a part of a contract with the manufacturer. If there is an issue whether the manufacturer was partly responsible for including the specification in the contract, a special instruction may be needed. See the Comment.
Use bracketed material as applicable. The first paragraph of this instruction should be used if compliance with a government specification relating to design is in issue. The second paragraph of this instruction should be used if compliance with a government specification relating to warnings is in issue.
COMMENT
RCW 7.72.050(2).
The statute provides in part that when “the injury-causing aspect of the product was, at the time of manufacture, in compliance with a specific mandatory government contract specification relating to design or warnings, this compliance shall be an absolute defense.”
The statute limits this absolute defense to “contract” specifications.
Compliance with mandatory government contract specifications relating to warnings is an absolute defense to a failure-to-warn claim, and compliance with design specifications is an absolute defense to a design defect claim, but compliance with a design specification is not a defense to a failure-to-warn claim (and vice versa). See Timberline Air Serv., Inc., v. Bell Helicopter-Textron, Inc., 125 Wn.2d 305, 311–18, 884 P.2d 920 (1994) (compliance with design specification is not a defense in a failure-to-warn case); see also Hoglund v. Raymark Indus., 50 Wn.App. 360, 749 P.2d 164 (1987) (compliance with government standards unrelated to warnings do not excuse a manufacturer from liability for failure to warn).
There “must be a causal link between the injury and the compliance with the standards set forth in the government contract specifications before the defense arises.” Timberline, 125 Wn.2d at 316. The pattern instruction, by bracketing separate paragraphs for design specifications and warning specifications, is consistent with the Timberline analysis.
The Court of Appeals held in In re Estate of Foster, 55 Wn.App. 545, 779 P.2d 272 (1989), that the trial court did not err in giving an instruction similar to WPI 110.05. The Foster court considered whether the defense created by RCW 7.72.050(2) applies if a contractor has engaged in discussions or negotiations with the government regarding the development of specifications. The court stated that RCW 7.72.050(2) cannot be read to deny a manufacturer the defense because the government consulted the manufacturer about the availability of a product required by the specifications. However, the defense might not apply in a case in which the evidence demonstrates consultation and negotiation that is so intense and one sided that the contract specification is constructively the manufacturer's and not the government's.
[Current as of December 2020.]
End of Document