Washington Torts Flashcards

Under Washington's comparative fault statute (RCW 4.22.070), when are multiple defendants jointly and severally liable to a plaintiff?

Answer: When the claimant's total fault is zero, or when defendants acted in concert or in an agency relationship

Under RCW 4.22.070, defendants are jointly and severally liable when the claimant bears zero fault, or when defendants acted in concert or had an agency relationship; otherwise, liability is several only.

What is the general statute of limitations for personal injury tort claims in Washington state?

Answer: 3 years from the date of injury

RCW 4.16.080 establishes a three-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions in Washington.

Under Washington law, how does implied (secondary) assumption of the risk function after the state's adoption of comparative fault?

Answer: As a factor assigned a percentage of fault that reduces but does not eliminate the plaintiff's recovery

Washington merged implied unreasonable assumption of risk into the comparative fault framework under RCW 4.22, so it reduces but no longer automatically bars the plaintiff's recovery.

Which of the following best states Washington's 'eggshell plaintiff' (thin skull) rule?

Answer: A defendant takes the plaintiff as they find them and is liable for the full extent of harm even if the severity was unforeseeable

Washington follows the eggshell plaintiff rule: once the defendant's negligence causes harm, the defendant is liable for the full extent of the plaintiff's injuries, even if aggravated by an unforeseeable pre-existing vulnerability.

In Washington, what must a bystander establish to bring a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) after witnessing injury to a family member?

Answer: The bystander must be a close family member who contemporaneously perceived the serious injury or death of the primary victim caused by the defendant

Washington permits bystander NIED recovery for close family members who contemporaneously perceive the serious injury or death of another person caused by the defendant's negligence.

Under Washington law, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur permits a plaintiff to:

Answer: Establish a permissible inference of negligence without direct proof of the specific negligent act

Res ipsa loquitur in Washington creates a permissible inference of negligence when the injury is the kind that ordinarily does not occur without negligence and the instrumentality was in the defendant's exclusive control.

Which of the following best describes how Washington applies the 'firefighter's rule' in tort law?

Answer: Professional rescuers generally cannot recover in negligence for risks inherent to their profession that necessitated their response

Washington's firefighter's rule bars professional rescuers from suing in negligence when the injury results from the very risk that necessitated their professional response.