Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.24
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.010 (2026)

Action for injury or death of child

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A parent or legal guardian who has regularly contributed to the support of his or her minor child, and a parent or legal guardian who has had significant involvement in the life of an adult child, may maintain or join as a party an action as plaintiff for the injury or death of the child. For purposes of this section, "significant involvement" means demonstrated support of an emotional, psychological, or financial nature within the parent-child relationship, at or reasonably near the time of death, or at or reasonably near the time of the incident causing death, including either giving or receiving emotional, psychological, or financial support to or from the child.
(2) In addition to recovering damages for the child's health care expenses, loss of the child's services, loss of the child's financial support, and other economic losses, damages may be also recovered under this section for the loss of love and companionship of the child, loss of the child's emotional support, and for injury to or destruction of the parent-child relationship, in such amounts as determined by a trier of fact to be just under all the circumstances of the case.
(3) An action may be maintained by a parent or legal guardian under this section, regardless of whether or not the child has attained the age of majority, only if the child has no spouse, state registered domestic partner, or children.
(4) Each parent is entitled to recover for his or her own loss separately from the other parent regardless of marital status, even though this section creates only one cause of action.
(5) If one parent brings an action under this section and the other parent is not named as a plaintiff, notice of the institution of the suit, together with a copy of the complaint, shall be served upon the other parent: PROVIDED, That notice shall be required only if parentage has been duly established.
Such notice shall be in compliance with the statutory requirements for a summons. Such notice shall state that the other parent must join as a party to the suit within twenty days or the right to recover damages under this section shall be barred. Failure of the other parent to timely appear shall bar such parent's action to recover any part of an award made to the party instituting the suit.
[ 2019 c 159 s 5; 1998 c 237 s 2; 1973 1st ex.s. c 154 s 4; 1967 ex.s. c 81 s 1; 1927 c 191 s 1; Code 1881 s 9; 1877 p 5 s 9; 1873 p 5 s 10; 1869 p 4 s 9; RRS s 184.]

Notes:

Retroactive application—2019 c 159: See note following RCW 4.20.010.
Intent—1998 c 237: "It is the intent of this act to address the constitutional issue of equal protection addressed by the Washington state supreme court in Guard v. Jackson, 132 Wn.2d 660 (1997). The legislature intends to provide a civil cause of action for wrongful injury or death of a minor child to a mother or father, or both, if the mother or father has had significant involvement in the child's life, including but not limited to, emotional, psychological, or financial support." [ 1998 c 237 s 1.]
Severability—1973 1st ex.s. c 154: See note following RCW 2.12.030.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 126 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1964–2025 · leading case: Philippides v. Bernard, 151 Wash. 2d 376 (Wash. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Philippides v. Bernard, 151 Wash. 2d 376 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 33× “In these four consolidated cases the court must determine whether the legislature has eliminated the *381 requirement that parents of an adult child must be financially dependent on the adult child in order to recover for loss of consortium under RCW 4.24.010, the child injury/…”
Philippides v. Bernard, 88 P.3d 939 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 31× “In these four consolidated cases the court must determine whether the legislature has eliminated the requirement that parents of an adult child must be financially dependent on the adult child in order to recover for loss of consortium under RCW 4.24.010, the child injury/death…”
Bennett v. Seattle Mental Health, 269 P.3d 1079 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 63× “Bennett challenges dismissal of her lawsuit for lack of standing under RCW 4.24.010. Bennett argues that parents of a developmentally disabled and legally incapacitated adult child should be treated in the same way as the parents of a minor child under the wrongful death…”
Fast v. Kennewick Pub. Hosp. Dist., 384 P.3d 232 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 13× “Smith and Schroff and the hospital that employed them, Kennewick Public Hospital District (collectively defendants).”
Est. of Bunch v. Mcgraw Residential Ctr., 275 P.3d 1119 (Wash. 2012). · cites it 32× “Ashlie's adoptive father, Steven Bunch (Bunch) brought an action under RCW 4.24.010, a statute creating a right of action for the injury or death of a child, against the treatment center where Ashlie committed suicide, McGraw Residential Center.”
Wilson v. Lund, 491 P.2d 1287 (Wash. 1971). · cites it 36× “The crux of this appeal is whether the legislature in amending RCW 4.24.010 in *92 1967 authorized the recovery of damages for mental anguish in cases involving the wrongful death of or injury to a child.”
Postema v. Postema Enter., Inc., 72 P.3d 1122 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 14× “We conclude the trial court erred in its interpretation of the 1998 amendment because it did change the definition of “support” in RCW 4.24.010 and remand for a new trial under CR 59(a)(9).”
Guard v. Jackson, 940 P.2d 642 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 22× “RCW 4.24.010 authorizes parents to file a wrongful death action for the death of their minor child.”
Guard v. Jackson, 132 Wash. 2d 660 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 21× “RCW 4.24.010 authorizes parents to file a wrongful death action for the death of their minor child.”
Masunaga v. Gapasin, 790 P.2d 171 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 19× “The Masunagas contend that the trial court erred in concluding that they were required to demonstrate financial dependence on their deceased adult son in order to recover under RCW 4.24.010. The material facts are undisputed and were summarized in an earlier appeal of this…”
Wilson v. Lund, 447 P.2d 718 (Wash. 1968). · cites it 38× “Karen Wilson joined with her former husband, Donald Wilson, plaintiffs (appellants; Karen Wilson hereafter will be treated as the sole party appealing), in bringing an action under RCW 4.24.010 (the child death statute) against the defendants (respondents).”
Roberts v. Williamson, 111 S.W.3d 113 (Tex. 2003). · cites it 4× “Laws § 9-1-41; Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.010 . [2] As the Arizona Supreme Court has recognized, death is often "separated from severe injury by mere fortuity; and it would be anomalous to distinguish between the two when the quality of consortium is negatively affected by both.”
Show all 126 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.010(1) — 4 cases
Daniel Jerimiah Simms, Et Ano., V. Daryl B. Fish (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
Masood Abawi, Et Ano. v. Kiran Qureshi Aka (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
T.S. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No 1 (W.D. Wash. 2023).
Mills v. Zeichner (W.D. Wash. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.010(2) — 2 cases
Daniel Jerimiah Simms, Et Ano., V. Daryl B. Fish (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
Mills v. Zeichner (W.D. Wash. 2024).
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.