Anderson v. AKZO NOBEL COATINGS, INC.
260 P.3d 857
Wash.2011Background
- Anderson worked for Akzo Nobel Coatings from 1998 until she was terminated after filing safety complaints with L&I.
- She allegedly regularly mixed paint and wore respirators only inconsistently; air monitoring and respirator maintenance were disputed.
- Anderson's son Dalton, born 2000, later exhibited multiple congenital anomalies including neuronal migration defect and microcephalus; doctors linked some defects to in utero exposure to solvents.
- Anderson's safety complaints led to state inspections finding violations; shortly after, she was fired for taking paint for personal use without payment.
- Plaintiff sued Akzo for negligence and wrongful discharge; Akzo moved for summary judgment and sought to exclude experts under Frye; court granted in part, in limine, and on summary judgment.
- Court granted direct review, addressing causation testimony, comparative negligence, and wrongful discharge claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Frye apply to Daubert-style causation testimony in civil case? | Khattak's theory is generally accepted; Frye not implicated. | Causation theory requires general consensus on the specific link. | Frye not implicated if theory/methodology is generally accepted. |
| May Anderson introduce expert causation testimony about solvent exposure and Dalton's defects without full consensus on causation? | General scientific acceptance suffices for admissibility. | Need broader consensus on specific causation. | Allowed; not required to prove a universal consensus on specific causation. |
| Is Akzo's comparative negligence defense viable against Anderson's and Dalton's claims? | No basis for partial summary judgment dismissing comparative fault. | Anderson knowingly exposed herself to solvents and breached safety protocols. | Partial denial of summary judgment; issues to trial for comparative fault. |
| May Anderson's common-law wrongful discharge claim survive after Cudney v. ALSCO? | Public policy supports wrongful discharge for WISHA complaints. | WISHA retaliation claims should be precluded as a wrongful discharge basis. | Wrongful discharge claim affirmed as precluded per Cudney. |
Key Cases Cited
- Copeland, 130 Wash.2d 244 (1996) (Frye generally applied in Washington; Daubert not adopted in civil cases)
- Reese v. Stroh, 128 Wash.2d 300 (1995) (DAubert considerations differ in civil cases; Frye framework discussed)
- Cauthron, 120 Wash.2d 879 (1993) (ER 702/703; admissibility standards before Frye application)
- Gregory, 158 Wash.2d 759 (2006) (two-part Frye test: theory acceptance and reliable technique)
- Martin, 101 Wash.2d 713 (1984) (reasonable degree of medical certainty standard)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (rejected Frye general-acceptance; focus on reliability of methods)