Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.22
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.22.015 (2026)

"Fault" defined

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
"Fault" includes acts or omissions, including misuse of a product, that are in any measure negligent or reckless toward the person or property of the actor or others, or that subject a person to strict tort liability or liability on a product liability claim. The term also includes breach of warranty, unreasonable assumption of risk, and unreasonable failure to avoid an injury or to mitigate damages. Legal requirements of causal relation apply both to fault as the basis for liability and to contributory fault.
A comparison of fault for any purpose under RCW 4.22.005 through 4.22.060 shall involve consideration of both the nature of the conduct of the parties to the action and the extent of the causal relation between such conduct and the damages.
[ 1981 c 27 s 9.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 80 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Welch v. Southland Corp., 952 P.2d 162 (Wash. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Welch v. Southland Corp., 952 P.2d 162 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 17× “070 and RCW 4.22.015, specifically, whether liability may be apportioned to intentional tortfeasors.”
Welch v. Southland Corp., 134 Wash. 2d 629 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 17× “070 and RCW 4.22.015, specifically, whether liability may be apportioned to intentional tort-feasors.”
Christensen v. Royal Sch. Dist. No. 160, 124 P.3d 283 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 9× “Under the act, "fault" is defined as "acts or omissions .”
Christensen v. Royal Sch. Dist. No. 160, 156 Wash. 2d 62 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 9× “Under the act, “fault” is defined as “acts or omissions . . . that are in any measure negligent or reckless toward the person or property of the actor or others” and includes an “unreasonable failure to avoid an injury or to mitigate damages.”
Hiner v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 138 Wash. 2d 248 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 10× “51 *259 Entity Liability Petitioner also contends the trial court erred in dismissing its affirmative defense of entity liability under RCW 4.22.015 and RCW 4.22.070(1), 52 arguing that liability should be shared by the installer of the studded snow tires, the manufacturer of…”
Hiner v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 978 P.2d 505 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 10× “[51] *511 ENTITY LIABILITY Petitioner also contends the trial court erred in dismissing its affirmative defense of entity liability under RCW 4.22.015 and RCW 4.22.070(1), [52] arguing that liability should be shared by the installer of the studded snow tires, the manufacturer…”
Price v. Kitsap Transit, 886 P.2d 556 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 6× “To determine whether a 4-year-old child is capable of "fault", the statutory definition of "fault" must be considered. On the facts of this case, "fault" must be given the meaning of: acts or omissions .”
Tegman v. Accident & Med. Investigations, 75 P.3d 497 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 4× “RCW 4.22.015 defines "fault" to include "acts or omissions, including misuse of a product, that are in any measure negligent or reckless .”
Tegman v. Accident & Med. Investigations, Inc., 150 Wash. 2d 102 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 4× “RCW 4.22.015 defines “fault” to include “acts or omissions, including misuse of a product, that are in any measure negligent or reckless .”
Sheikh v. Choe, 128 P.3d 574 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 2× “¶ 37 Here the State may be an at-fault defendant under RCW 4.22.015 and the four *585 assailants are excluded from that statute because they are intentional tortfeasors.”
Aba Sheikh v. Choe, 156 Wash. 2d 441 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 2× “¶38 Here the State may be an at-fault defendant under RCW 4.22.015 and the four assailants are excluded from that statute because they are intentional tortfeasors.”
Porter v. Kirkendoll, 449 P.3d 627 (Wash. 2019). · cites it 3× “2d 162 (1998); see also RCW 4.22.015 (omitting intentional torts from the definition of fault for purposes of the tort reform act); Price v.”
Show all 80 citing cases →
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.