Wash. Rev. Code » Title 36 · Chapter 36.86
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.86.040 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The county legislative authority shall erect and maintain upon the county roads such suitable and proper signs, signals, signboards, and guideposts and appropriate stop, caution, warning, restrictive, and directional signs and markings as it deems necessary or as may be required by law. This includes informational signs to address jumping from bridges as authorized in RCW 47.36.410. All such markings shall be in accordance with the uniform state standard of color, design, erection, and location adopted and designed by the Washington state department of transportation. In respect to existing and future railroad grade crossings over county roads the legislative authority shall install and maintain standard, nonmechanical railroad approach warning signs on both sides of the railroad upon the approaches of the county road. All such signs shall be located a sufficient distance from the crossing to give adequate warning to persons traveling on county roads.
[ 2023 c 54 s 5; 1984 c 7 s 40; 1963 c 4 s 36.86.040. Prior: 1955 c 310 s 1; 1937 c 187 s 37; RRS s 6450-37.]

Notes:

Short title—Intent—Finding—2023 c 54: See notes following RCW 35.21.095.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1962–1980 · leading case: Riley v. Burlington N., Inc., 615 P.2d 516 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Riley v. Burlington N., Inc., 615 P.2d 516 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 3× “The County took the position that under RCW 36.86.040, 1 it is only required to install and maintain standard, nonmechanical railroad approach warning signs along county roads on both sides of a railroad grade crossing.”
Kitt v. Yakima Cnty., 611 P.2d 1234 (Wash. 1980). “The trial court found the signing to be negligent as a matter of law on the basis of its interpretation of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD), which was adopted as modified by the State Highway Commission in 1972, pursuant to RCW…”
Radosevich v. Cnty. Commissioners, 476 P.2d 705 (Wash. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 3× “020 and RCW 36.86.040. There were no advance warning signs on Grand-view Road before reaching the yield sign and there were no signs on Jackson Road at all.”
Schneider v. Yakima Cnty., 397 P.2d 411 (Wash. 1964). · cites it 2× “” RCW 36.86.040 2 The necessity for a requirement of uniformity in color, design, manner of erection and location in a state having 39 counties seems obvious.”
Goodner v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pac. R.R., 377 P.2d 231 (Wash. 1962). “” The title to the act reads: “An Act relating to railroad grade crossings; and amending section 37, chapter 187, Laws of 1937 and RCW 36.86.040, section 81, chapter 53, Laws of 1937 and RCW 47.”
Goodner v. Chicago, Mil. Etc., R. Co., 377 P.2d 231 (Wash. 1962). “" The title to the act reads: "AN ACT relating to railroad grade crossings; and amending section 37, chapter 187, Laws of 1937 and RCW 36.86.040, section 81, chapter 53, Laws of 1937 and RCW 47.”
Kitt v. Yakima Cnty., 596 P.2d 314 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). “Pursuant to the mandate of RCW 36.86.040, the State Highway Commission adopted a Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (M.”
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.