WA Bar Washington Torts 1 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Under Washington's comparative fault statute (RCW 4.22.070), when are multiple defendants jointly and severally liable to a plaintiff?
- Always, regardless of the plaintiff's comparative fault
- When the claimant's total fault is zero, or when defendants acted in concert or in an agency relationship (Correct answer)
- When any single defendant is more than 50% at fault for the plaintiff's injuries
- Never — Washington applies pure several liability in all cases
Correct 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.
Question 2: What is the general statute of limitations for personal injury tort claims in Washington state?
- 1 year from the date of injury
- 2 years from the date of injury
- 3 years from the date of injury (Correct answer)
- 4 years from the date of injury
Correct 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.
Question 3: Under Washington law, how does implied (secondary) assumption of the risk function after the state's adoption of comparative fault?
- As a complete bar to the plaintiff's recovery in all circumstances
- As a factor assigned a percentage of fault that reduces but does not eliminate the plaintiff's recovery (Correct answer)
- As an absolute defense that negates the defendant's duty of care
- As a defense available only in cases involving intentional torts
Correct 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.
Question 4: Which of the following best states Washington's 'eggshell plaintiff' (thin skull) rule?
- A defendant is liable only for foreseeable types and extents of harm
- A defendant takes the plaintiff as they find them and is liable for the full extent of harm even if the severity was unforeseeable (Correct answer)
- A plaintiff's recovery is reduced proportionally when a pre-existing condition contributed to the injury
- A defendant is not liable for harm primarily caused by a pre-existing condition
Correct 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.
Question 5: 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?
- The bystander must have suffered a physical impact from the defendant's conduct
- The bystander must have been within the zone of danger and feared for their own safety
- The bystander must be a close family member who contemporaneously perceived the serious injury or death of the primary victim caused by the defendant (Correct answer)
- The bystander must have a pre-existing diagnosed psychiatric disorder
Correct 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.
Question 6: Under Washington law, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur permits a plaintiff to:
- Automatically obtain a directed verdict without presenting any evidence of negligence
- Establish a permissible inference of negligence without direct proof of the specific negligent act (Correct answer)
- Shift the entire burden of proof to the defendant to disprove negligence
- Recover without proving causation whenever the defendant had exclusive control
Correct 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.
Question 7: Which of the following best describes how Washington applies the 'firefighter's rule' in tort law?
- Firefighters can recover for all on-duty injuries regardless of how the risk arose
- Professional rescuers generally cannot recover in negligence for risks inherent to their profession that necessitated their response (Correct answer)
- Firefighters have a strict liability claim against property owners who negligently started fires
- The firefighter's rule has been abolished by Washington statute
Correct 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.
WA Bar Washington Torts 1
Under Washington's comparative fault statute (RCW 4.22.070), when are multiple defendants jointly and severally liable to a plaintiff?