Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.22.070 (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) In all actions involving fault of more than one entity, the trier of fact shall determine the percentage of the total fault which is attributable to every entity which caused the claimant's damages except entities immune from liability to the claimant under Title 51 RCW. The sum of the percentages of the total fault attributed to at-fault entities shall equal one hundred percent. The entities whose fault shall be determined include the claimant or person suffering personal injury or incurring property damage, defendants, third-party defendants, entities released by the claimant, entities with any other individual defense against the claimant, and entities immune from liability to the claimant, but shall not include those entities immune from liability to the claimant under Title 51 RCW. Judgment shall be entered against each defendant except those who have been released by the claimant or are immune from liability to the claimant or have prevailed on any other individual defense against the claimant in an amount which represents that party's proportionate share of the claimant's total damages. The liability of each defendant shall be several only and shall not be joint except:

(a) A party shall be responsible for the fault of another person or for payment of the proportionate share of another party where both were acting in concert or when a person was acting as an agent or servant of the party.

(b) If the trier of fact determines that the claimant or party suffering bodily injury or incurring property damages was not at fault, the defendants against whom judgment is entered shall be jointly and severally liable for the sum of their proportionate shares of the claimants [claimant's] total damages.

(2) If a defendant is jointly and severally liable under one of the exceptions listed in subsections (1)(a) or (1)(b) of this section, such defendant's rights to contribution against another jointly and severally liable defendant, and the effect of settlement by either such defendant, shall be determined under RCW 4.22.040, 4.22.050, and 4.22.060.

(3)(a) Nothing in this section affects any cause of action relating to hazardous wastes or substances or solid waste disposal sites.

(b) Nothing in this section shall affect a cause of action arising from the tortious interference with contracts or business relations.

(c) Nothing in this section shall affect any cause of action arising from the manufacture or marketing of a fungible product in a generic form which contains no clearly identifiable shape, color, or marking.

[ 1993 c 496 s 1; 1986 c 305 s 401.]

Notes:

Effective date—1993 c 496: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect July 1, 1993." [ 1993 c 496 s 3.]

Application—1993 c 496: "This act applies to all causes of action that the parties have not settled or in which judgment has not been entered prior to July 1, 1993." [ 1993 c 496 s 4.]

Preamble—Report to legislature—Applicability—Severability—1986 c 305: See notes following RCW 4.16.160.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 202 cases (28 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Afoa v. Port of Seattle, 421 P.3d 903 (Wash. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Afoa v. Port of Seattle, 421 P.3d 903 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 120× “dollar verdict for Afoa and apportioned fault among Afoa, the Port, and the nonparty airlines We granted review to consider issues of allocation of fault to a nonparty and the assertion of an empty chair defense Afoa now argues that the Port and the airlines are jointly and…”

Washburn v. Beatt Equip. Co., 840 P.2d 860 (Wash. 1992). · cites it 83× “It is a complex issue of first impression under RCW 4.22.070. The trial court entered judgment against defendant Beatt by calculating 80 percent of the total verdict of $8 million, with a result of $6,400,000, and then reducing that result by amounts paid by settling fault-free…”

Tegman v. Accident & Med. Investigations, 75 P.3d 497 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 67× “We hold that under RCW 4.22.070 the damages resulting from negligence must be segregated from those resulting from intentional acts, and the negligent defendants are jointly and severally liable only for the damages resulting from their negligence.”

Tegman v. Accident & Med. Investigations, Inc., 150 Wash. 2d 102 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 67× “We hold that under RCW 4.22.070 the damages resulting from negligence must be segregated from those resulting from intentional acts, and the negligent defendants are jointly and severally liable only for the damages resulting from their negligence.”

Kottler v. State, 963 P.2d 834 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 56× “We hold such settling party may not seek contribution unless joint and several liability arises under one of the exceptions listed in RCW 4.22.070 and conclude joint and several liability will not arise under RCW 4.”

Kottler v. State, 136 Wash. 2d 437 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 56× “We hold such settling party may not seek contribution unless joint and several liability arises under one of the exceptions listed in RCW 4.22.070 and conclude joint and several liability will not arise under RCW 4.”

Barton v. Dep't of Transp., 308 P.3d 597 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 47× “After discussing the standard of review and Washington’s joint and several liability scheme as it relates to released parties, we turn to the question of whether the Stipulation released the Linvogs.”

Price v. Kitsap Transit, 886 P.2d 556 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 32× “Kitsap Transit petitioned for review by this court, contending that RCW 4.22.070 allows and expressly contemplates the apportionment of "fault" to 4-year-old children.”

Clark v. Pacificorp, 822 P.2d 162 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 26× “060(1)(f) provide for elimination or merely a reduction of the Department's right to reimbursement if the worker's employer or coemployee is determined to be at fault under RCW 4.22.070? In accordance with the principles of comparative fault, tort reform, and adequate…”

Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp., 780 P.2d 260 (Wash. 1989). · cites it 12× “If legislation is enacted in 1986 creating joint and several liability for causes of action relating to solid wastes or hazardous wastes or substances, then this subsection shall be null and void. Senate Journal, 49th Legislature (1986), at 467.”

Standing Rock Homeowners Ass'n v. Misich, 23 P.3d 520 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 11× “030 states: “Except as otherwise provided in RCW 4.22.070, if more than one person is liable to a claimant on an indivisible claim for the same injury, death or harm, the liability of such person shall be joint and several.”

Welch v. Southland Corp., 952 P.2d 162 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 18× “This case involves the interpretation of RCW 4.22.070 and RCW 4.22.015, specifically, whether liability may be apportioned to intentional tortfeasors.”

Show all 202 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.22.070(1) — 100 cases

Price v. Kitsap Transit, 886 P.2d 556 (Wash. 1994). “Kitsap Transit petitioned for review by this court, contending that RCW 4.22.070 allows and expressly contemplates the apportionment of "fault" to 4-year-old children.”

Washburn v. Beatt Equip. Co., 840 P.2d 860 (Wash. 1992). “It is a complex issue of first impression under RCW 4.22.070. The trial court entered judgment against defendant Beatt by calculating 80 percent of the total verdict of $8 million, with a result of $6,400,000, and then reducing that result by amounts paid by settling fault-free…”

Tegman v. Accident & Med. Investigations, 75 P.3d 497 (Wash. 2003). “We hold that under RCW 4.22.070 the damages resulting from negligence must be segregated from those resulting from intentional acts, and the negligent defendants are jointly and severally liable only for the damages resulting from their negligence.”

Tegman v. Accident & Med. Investigations, Inc., 150 Wash. 2d 102 (Wash. 2003). “We hold that under RCW 4.22.070 the damages resulting from negligence must be segregated from those resulting from intentional acts, and the negligent defendants are jointly and severally liable only for the damages resulting from their negligence.”

Afoa v. Port of Seattle, 421 P.3d 903 (Wash. 2018). “dollar verdict for Afoa and apportioned fault among Afoa, the Port, and the nonparty airlines We granted review to consider issues of allocation of fault to a nonparty and the assertion of an empty chair defense Afoa now argues that the Port and the airlines are jointly and…”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.22.070(1)(a) — 21 cases

Kottler v. State, 963 P.2d 834 (Wash. 1998). “We hold such settling party may not seek contribution unless joint and several liability arises under one of the exceptions listed in RCW 4.22.070 and conclude joint and several liability will not arise under RCW 4.”

Kottler v. State, 136 Wash. 2d 437 (Wash. 1998). “We hold such settling party may not seek contribution unless joint and several liability arises under one of the exceptions listed in RCW 4.22.070 and conclude joint and several liability will not arise under RCW 4.”

One Pac. Towers Homeowners'ass'n v. Hal Real Est. Investments, Inc., 61 P.3d 1094 (Wash. 2002).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.22.070(1)(b) — 40 cases

Anderson v. City of Seattle, 873 P.2d 489 (Wash. 1994).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.22.070(11)(a) — 1 case

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.22.070(2) — 16 cases

Barton v. Dep't of Transp., 308 P.3d 597 (Wash. 2013). “After discussing the standard of review and Washington’s joint and several liability scheme as it relates to released parties, we turn to the question of whether the Stipulation released the Linvogs.”

Adcox v. Child.'s Orthopedic Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 864 P.2d 921 (Wash. 1993).

Gerrard v. Craig, 857 P.2d 1033 (Wash. 1993).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.22.070(3) — 8 cases

Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp., 780 P.2d 260 (Wash. 1989). “If legislation is enacted in 1986 creating joint and several liability for causes of action relating to solid wastes or hazardous wastes or substances, then this subsection shall be null and void. Senate Journal, 49th Legislature (1986), at 467.”

Findley v. Blinken (In Re Jt. E. & S. Dist. Asbestos Litig.), 129 B.R. 710 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.22.070(3)(a) — 10 cases

Coulter v. Asten Grp., Inc., 135 Wash. App. 613 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).

Coulter v. Asten Grp., Inc., 146 P.3d 444 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).

Bird-Johnson Corp. v. Dana Corp., 833 P.2d 375 (Wash. 1992).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.22.070(3)(b) — 2 cases

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.22.070(3)(c) — 2 cases

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.22.070(a) — 1 case

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.22.070(b) — 3 cases

Fortin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 914 P.2d 1209 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996).

Tegman v. Accident & Med. Investigations, Inc., 107 Wash. App. 868 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).

Stacie Cavner, Apps/x-resps v. Cont'l Motors Inc., Resp/x-app (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.22.070(l) — 2 cases

Est. of Dormaier v. Columbia Basin Anesthesia, PLLC, 177 Wash. App. 828 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).

Smelser v. Paul (Wash. 2017).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.22.070(l)(a) — 11 cases

Standing Rock Homeowners Ass'n v. Misich, 23 P.3d 520 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “030 states: “Except as otherwise provided in RCW 4.22.070, if more than one person is liable to a claimant on an indivisible claim for the same injury, death or harm, the liability of such person shall be joint and several.”

Gilbert H. Moen Co. v. Island Steel Erectors, Inc., 878 P.2d 1246 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994).

Johnson v. Recreational Equip., Inc., 159 Wash. App. 939 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).

Yong Tao v. Heng Bin Li, 140 Wash. App. 825 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).

Pietz v. Indermuehle, 949 P.2d 449 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.22.070(l)(b) — 31 cases

Brewer v. Dodson Aviation, 447 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (W.D. Wash. 2006).

Aba Sheikh v. Choe, 156 Wash. 2d 441 (Wash. 2006).

Doe v. Corp. of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 141 Wash. App. 407 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).

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.