Wash. Rev. Code » Title 16 · Chapter 16.08
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 16.08.040 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The owner of any dog which shall bite any person while such person is in or on a public place or lawfully in or on a private place including the property of the owner of such dog, shall be liable for such damages as may be suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness.
(2) This section does not apply to the lawful application of a police dog, as defined in RCW 4.24.410.
[ 2012 c 94 s 1; 1941 c 77 s 1; Rem. Supp. 1941 s 3109-1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1970–2025 · leading case: Finch v. Thurston Cnty., 381 P.3d 46 (Wash. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Finch v. Thurston Cnty., 381 P.3d 46 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 39× “RCW 16.08.040. In other words, if strict liability applies, the injured person does not have to prove that the owner was negligent or aware that the dog posed a threat.”
Sligar v. Odell, 156 Wash. App. 720 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 10× “Her complaint alleged strict liability under RCW 16.08.040 and common law negligence. Following discovery, the Odells moved for summary judgment.”
Beeler v. Hickman, 750 P.2d 1282 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 12× “Beeler contends the court erred in finding: (1) the Hickmans were not the owners of the dog under RCW 16.08.040; (2) no evidence the Hickmans knew or had reason to know of the dog's vicious propensities; (3) no evidence of Mrs.”
Floeting v. Grp. Health Coop., 434 P.3d 39 (Wash. 2019). · cites it 2× “The Beeler court noted that the statute, RCW 16.08.040, addresses the knowledge requirement stating that an owner is liable "regardless" ofthe "owner's knowledge ofsuch viciousness.”
Sligar v. Odell, 233 P.3d 914 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 10× “Her complaint alleged strict liability under RCW 16.08.040 and common law negligence. Following discovery, the Odells moved for summary judgment.”
Wright v. Engum, 878 P.2d 1198 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 3× “Specifically, Plaintiff cites RCW 16.08.040 which provides that the dog owner "shall be liable” when the owner’s dog bites a person lawfully present on the property.”
State v. Bash, 925 P.2d 978 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 2× “Moreover, RCW 16.08.040, enacted in 1941, provides for strict civil liability of an owner for damages resulting from a dog bite "regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner’s knowledge of such viciousness.”
Klein v. Pyrodyne Corp., 817 P.2d 1359 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 2× “[4] The statute, which mandates insurance coverage to pay for all damages resulting from fireworks displays, establishes strict liability for any ensuing injuries.”
Dominick v. Christensen, 548 P.2d 541 (Wash. 1976). · cites it 2× “The sole issue raised on this appeal is what is meant by the word “lawfully” as used in RCW 16.08.040, which reads: The owner of any dog which shall bite any person while such person is in or on a public place or lawfully in or on a private place including the property of the…”
Frobig v. Gordon, 881 P.2d 226 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 2× “Clemmons , at 37; Shafer , at 446; see also RCW 16.08.040 (owner of dog liable for dog’s attacks).”
Shafer v. Beyers, 613 P.2d 554 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “RCW 16.08.040 imposes strict liability for dog bites sustained by persons in public and certain other places regardless of whether the dog is known to be vicious before the biting.”
Arnold v. Laird, 621 P.2d 138 (Wash. 1980). “1 Plaintiffs did not claim statutory liability under RCW 16.08.040 et seq. 2 Debrah, being only 4 years of age, was not capable of contributory negligence as a matter of law.”
Show all 33 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 16.08.040(1) — 6 cases
Finch v. Thurston Cnty., 381 P.3d 46 (Wash. 2016). “RCW 16.08.040. In other words, if strict liability applies, the injured person does not have to prove that the owner was negligent or aware that the dog posed a threat.”
Finch v. Thurston Cnty. (Wash. 2016).
Shelly Carr v. Jose & Lisa Riveros & State Farm (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Sharon Kay Dalton & Terry Bruce Dalton, Apps. v. Ryan John Mack, Res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
John Austin v. Jimmy's Contractor Servs., Inc., d/b/a Jimmy's Roofing (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 16.08.040(2) — 3 cases
Finch v. Thurston Cnty., 381 P.3d 46 (Wash. 2016). “RCW 16.08.040. In other words, if strict liability applies, the injured person does not have to prove that the owner was negligent or aware that the dog posed a threat.”
Finch v. Thurston Cnty. (Wash. 2016).
Velasquez v. King Cnty. (W.D. Wash. 2020).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.