Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 4.08.120 (2026)
Action against public corporations
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
An action may be maintained against a county or other of the public corporations mentioned or described in RCW 4.08.110, either upon a contract made by such county, or other public corporation in its corporate character and within the scope of its authority, or for an injury to the rights of the plaintiff arising from some act or omission of such county or other public corporation.
[ 1953 c 118 s 2. Prior: Code 1881 s 662; 1869 p 154 s 602; RRS s 951.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases, 1953–2020 · leading case: Kilbourn v. City of Seattle, 261 P.2d 407 (Wash. 1953).
Kilbourn v. City of Seattle, 261 P.2d 407 (Wash. 1953). “RCW 4.08.120], which reads: "An action may be maintained against a county, or other of the public corporations mentioned or described in the preceding section [ i.”
Worthington v. WestNET, 341 P.3d 995 (Wash. 2015). “Per the Agreement, a Kitsap County deputy prosecutor appeared on behalf of WestNET and filed a CR 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, arguing that Worthington failed to identify WestNET as a county or public corporation that may be sued under RCW 4.08.120. 2 The prosecutor later amended…”
McLeod v. Grant Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 128, 255 P.2d 360 (Wash. 1953). “The amended complaint then contains this further allegation: "That defendant knew or should have known that acts of indecency do occur when children are not supervised and should have foreseen that the injuries inflicted upon the plaintiff were reasonably likely to occur unless…”
Wagenblast v. Odessa Sch. Dist. No. 105-157-166J, 758 P.2d 968 (Wash. 1988). “54 (now codified as RCW 4.08.120); see also RCW 4.96.010; Redfield v.”
Travis v. Bohannon, 115 P.3d 342 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “RCW 4.08.120; Briscoe v. Sch. Dist. No. 123, Grays Harbor County, 32 Wash.”
Travis v. Bohannon, 128 Wash. App. 231 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “RCW 4.08.120; Briscoe ex rel. Briscoe v. Sch.”
Babcock v. Sch. Dist. No. 17 of Clallam Cty., 358 P.2d 547 (Wash. 1961). “110, RCW; repealing section 602, page 154, Laws of 1869 and section 662, Code of 1881, and amending section 4.08.120, RCW.” This act is comprised of two sections, the pertinent parts of which provide: “Section 1.”
Briedablik, Big Valley, Lofall, Edgewater, Surfrest, North End Cmty. Ass'n v. Kitsap Cnty., 652 P.2d 383 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). “RCW 4.08.120 provides: An action may be maintained against a county .”
Sherwood v. Moxee Sch. Dist. No. 90, 363 P.2d 138 (Wash. 1961). “110, either upon a contract made by such county, or *355 other public corporation in its corporate character and within the scope of its authority, or for an injury to the rights of the plaintiff arising from some act or omission of such county or other public corporation.”
Rhea v. Grandview Sch. Dist. No. JT 116-200, 694 P.2d 666 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “The common law rule of tort immunity of school districts and their employees was abrogated in Washington by RCW 4.08.120: An action may be maintained against a county or other of the public corporations mentioned or described in *560 RCW 4.”
Segerman v. Jones, 259 A.2d 794 (Md. 1970). “Law § 2560 (1953) ; Washington, Wash. Rev. Code § 4.08.120 (1953). 6 . Connecticut, Conn.”
Chappel v. Franklin Pierce Sch. Dist. No. 402, 426 P.2d 471 (Wash. 1967). “On this score appellant, in essence, argues that enactment of the state tort claims act of 1961, together with its amendment in 1963, repealed by implication the italicized portion of RCW 4.08.120, which provides: An action may be maintained against a county or other of the…”
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.