Wash. Rev. Code » Title 38 · Chapter 38.52
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 38.52.190 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Except as provided in this chapter, an emergency worker and his or her dependents shall have no right to receive compensation from the state, from the agency, from the local organization for emergency management with which he or she is registered, or from the county or city which has empowered the local organization for emergency management to register him or her and direct his or her activities, for an injury or death arising out of and occurring in the course of his or her activities as an emergency worker.
[ 2011 c 336 s 792; 1984 c 38 s 18; 1974 ex.s. c 171 s 21; 1953 c 223 s 3.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 2001–2006 · leading case: Hauber v. Yakima Cnty., 56 P.3d 559 (Wash. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hauber v. Yakima Cnty., 56 P.3d 559 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 5× “Because the rescue was started long after the air carried by Rhode and Eberle would have been exhausted, the estate contends the mission should have been treated as a body recovery.”
Hauber v. Yakima Cnty., 56 P.3d 559 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 5× “Because the rescue was started long after the air carried by Rhode and Eberle would have been exhausted, the estate contends the mission should have been treated as a body recovery.”
Locke v. City of Seattle, 137 P.3d 52 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “The court found that, "[i]f Hauber had responded to the call as a fire fighter or pursuant to a mutual aid agreement, he may have been entitled to bring suit against the city for negligence under RCW 41.26.281 by application of RCW 38.”
Locke v. City of Seattle, 133 Wash. App. 696 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “The court found that “[i]f Hauber had responded to the call as a fire fighter or pursuant to a mutual aid agreement, he may have been entitled to bring suit against the city for negligence under RCW 41.”
Hauber v. Yakima Cnty., 107 Wash. App. 437 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 7× “RCW 38.52.190, .260, .290. The chapter prohibits additional recovery from the county that registered the emergency worker or that directed his or her activities.”
Hauber v. Cnty. of Yakima, 27 P.3d 257 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 7× “RCW 38.52.190, .260, .290. The chapter prohibits additional recovery from the county that registered the emergency worker or that directed his or her activities.”
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.