Washington Personal Injury — Subject-Matter Bundle

Washington Personal Injury — Subject-Matter Bundle

NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Personal-injury statutes have been amended materially over time. This skill names the controlling chapters and describes doctrinal frameworks; current SOL day counts, statutes of repose, notice-of- claim periods, joint-liability carve-outs, and damages caps live in the references corpus at wa-law- references/references/wa-rcw-debt/. Verify against the current chapter file before relying on any specific figure.

At a glance — Washington's PI doctrinal architecture

• Comparative fault: Washington applies pure comparative fault — plaintiff recovers reduced by her own fault even at 99% at fault. This places WA in the minority of ~12 pure-comparative-fault states.
• Joint vs. several liability: several liability is the general rule post-1986 Reform Act, with narrow joint-liability carve-outs (concert of action, agency, vicarious liability, non-delegable duty, intentional conduct, plaintiff-not-at-fault scenarios).
• Notice of Claim is a pre-suit prerequisite for suits against the state (RCW 4.92) or local governments (RCW 4.96).
• WPLA at RCW 7.72 is the exclusive remedy for manufactured-product injury; common-law strict-product- liability claims are preempted.
• Medical malpractice at RCW 7.70 has its own SOL, notice-of-intent, and mediation framework.

Chapter pointers

For SOLs, statutes of repose, notice-of-claim contents, useful-safe-life presumption, and the joint-liability carve-out enumeration, read the relevant chapter file.

Comparative fault — doctrinal framework

Pure comparative fault

Plaintiff's fault reduces recovery proportionally; it does not bar recovery. This contrasts with:

• Modified comparative fault (50% or 51% bar — most states)
• Pure contributory negligence (any plaintiff fault bars recovery — DC, MD, NC, VA, AL)

Apportionment among defendants

Each defendant pays only their proportional share unless a carve-out applies. The 1986 Reform Act shifted substantial risk to plaintiffs — under-insured / judgment- proof co-defendants leave plaintiff bearing that share. For the carve-out enumeration, see RCW-4_22.md.

Empty-chair defense

Defendants commonly attempt to allocate fault to:

• Settling co-defendants (reasonable-settlement reduction)
• Non-parties / absent tortfeasors (named in answer + supported by evidence)
• Plaintiff herself (comparative-fault reduction)

Plaintiff must defend against all of these allocations or lose recovery to "empty chairs."

Wrongful death + survival — doctrinal framework

Wrongful death (RCW 4.20.010-020)

Statute identifies the beneficiary class and the recoverable elements (economic loss; loss of consortium / companionship; for some beneficiaries, general damages). The beneficiary class was expanded by reform in recent years. For the current beneficiary categories and the recoverable-elements list, see RCW-4_20.md.

Survival actions

The decedent's PI claim survives to the estate. Recoverable elements: pre-death medical, lost earnings, pain and suffering. Recent reform allowed general-damages survival without dependents. See RCW-4_20.md.

SOL nuance

Wrongful-death SOL runs from death, not from the injury that later caused death — a common pitfall when the injury and death are temporally separated. Day-count in RCW-4_16.md.

Medical malpractice — doctrinal framework

Causes of action

RCW 7.70.030 enumerates three grounds:

1. Negligence — failure to follow accepted standard of care
2. Promise of result not fulfilled
3. Lack of informed consent

SOL + statute of repose

The med-mal SOL combines a "discovery rule" tail with a hard outer cap (statute of repose). For current day counts on each prong and the narrow exceptions to the outer cap, read RCW-4_16.md (the SOL chapter) together with RCW-7_70.md (the substantive cause-of- action chapter).

Pre-suit notice of intent

Plaintiff must serve a written notice of intent to sue some period before filing. Filing without notice = dismissal without prejudice (refile after notice satisfied). See RCW-7_70.md.

Mandatory mediation

For med-mal claims, mediation is mandatory before trial. Either party can demand; if neither demands, mediation may be ordered by the court.

Informed consent

To prove lack of informed consent, plaintiff must establish a material risk involved, non-disclosure of that risk, the risk materialized as injury, and that plaintiff would not have consented if disclosed. See RCW-7_70.md.

Certificate of merit

A 2006-era certificate-of-merit prerequisite was struck down by the Washington Supreme Court on right-to-jury- trial grounds. Do NOT cite that requirement as still operative. (Case: Putman v. Wenatchee Valley Med. Ctr.)

Product liability (WPLA) — doctrinal framework

Coverage

WPLA at RCW 7.72 (1981) is the exclusive remedy for manufactured-product injury. Common-law strict-product- liability claims are preempted (per Washington State Phys. Ins. Exch.).

Three defect theories

RCW 7.72.030(1) recognizes:

1. Construction defect — the product was unreasonably safe in construction
2. Design defect — unreasonably safe in design; Washington applies a hybrid consumer-expectations + risk-utility test
3. Failure to warn — adequate warning would have prevented harm

SOL + useful-safe-life presumption

The WPLA SOL applies a discovery rule. Separately, there is a rebuttable presumption that harm caused outside the product's "useful safe life" occurred outside the life — a limitation on liability that can be rebutted by preponderance of evidence, with narrow statutory exceptions for warranty of longer safe use, intentional misrepresentation, and pre-life exposure with delayed manifestation.

For the current SOL day count, the useful-safe-life presumption period, and the exception enumeration, see RCW-7_72.md.

Defenses

• Useful safe life expired (subject to exceptions)
• Alteration after sale
• Misuse
• State-of-the-art (risk-utility analysis)
• Comparative fault

Notice of Tort Claim — pre-suit prerequisite

Against the State

Suits against the State of Washington require a written Notice of Tort Claim filed with the Office of Risk Management a fixed period before suit, with mandatory contents (claimant identification, incident date / time / place, description of incident + cause, damages description, damages amount, claimant verification). The notice tolls the SOL. Substantial compliance excused; missing required elements is fatal. See RCW-4_92.md.

Against Local Governments

The parallel requirement against cities, counties, school districts, and other local entities sits in RCW-4_96.md. Same notice period, same content requirements.

Damages

Economic vs. non-economic

Economic damages (medical, lost earnings, future earnings, future medical, property damage) — joint and several among co-defendants per fault allocation. Non-economic damages (pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of consortium) — several only under the Reform Act's carve-out for non-economic damages. Collateral-source rule applies.

Punitive damages

Washington does NOT recognize punitive damages at common law. Allowed only by statute (e.g., RCW 19.86 CPA treble damages; RCW 49.60 WLAD; some federal claims).

Caps

Washington does NOT have a general PI damages cap.

Composition with other wa- skills

• wa-statewide-format — caption + GR 14
• wa-discovery — RFP / interrogatories / RFA / deps
• wa-first-30-days — answer + affirmative defenses
• wa-deadlines — SOL computation + Notice of Claim
• wa-fact-check — citation verification