Lecy v. Bayliner Marine Corp.

Henry Lecy drowned after the motor yacht that he, his wife Karen (plaintiff), and Marco and Pamela Bacich (plaintiffs) chartered encountered turbulence at sea, causing Henry to fall against a cabin door and then fall overboard. Karen brought an action against Bayliner Marine Corp. (Bayliner) (defendant) for wrongful death and amended it to include a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, which was consolidated with the Baciches’ action for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The trial court gave the jury a special-verdict form with interrogatories and alternative answers for both strict liability and negligence. Bayliner objected to the special-verdict form wording, arguing that if the jury answered no to the strict-liability design-defect interrogatory, then it should not be allowed to consider the negligent-design interrogatory. The trial court disagreed and submitted the instructions to the jury. The jury answered that the yacht’s door system was not unreasonably dangerous in its design or construction and therefore there was no strict liability. However, the jury went on to find that Bayliner negligently designed the door system and that negligence proximately caused Henry’s death and Karen’s and the Baciches’ emotional distress. Bayliner sought a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the trial court denied. Karen and the Baciches argued that strict liability and negligence were not mutually exclusive theories under Davis v. Globe Mach. Mfg. Corp., 684 P.2d 692 (Wash. 1984).