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

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.200 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The purpose of RCW 4.24.200 and 4.24.210 is to encourage owners or others in lawful possession and control of land and water areas or channels to make them available to the public for recreational purposes by limiting their liability toward persons entering thereon and toward persons who may be injured or otherwise damaged by the acts or omissions of persons entering thereon.
[ 1969 ex.s. c 24 s 1; 1967 c 216 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 50 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: Camicia v. Howard S. Wright Constr. Co., 317 P.3d 987 (Wash. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Camicia v. Howard S. Wright Constr. Co., 317 P.3d 987 (Wash. 2014). · cites it 4× “The legislature expressly intended that the statute would “encourage owners or others in lawful possession and control of land and water areas or channels to make them available to the public for recreational purposes by limiting their liability toward persons entering thereon.”
McCarver v. Manson Park & Rec. Dist., 597 P.2d 1362 (Wash. 1979). · cites it 8× “r, shall not be liable for unintentional injuries to such users: Provided, That nothing in this section shall prevent the liability of such a landowner or others in lawful possession and control for injuries sustained to users by reason of a known dangerous artificial latent…”
Swinehart v. City of Spokane, 187 P.3d 345 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “¶ 1 Under the recreational use statute, RCW 4.24.200 and .210, landowners who allow the public to use their land for recreational purposes are generally immune from liability.”
Swinehart v. City of Spokane, 145 Wash. App. 836 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “¶1 Under the recreational use statute, RCW 4.24.200 and .210, landowners who allow the public to use their land for recreational purposes are generally immune from liability.”
Davis v. State, 30 P.3d 460 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 4× “See RCW 4.24.200, .210. We hold the injury-causing condition in this case is not artificial and the State is not liable for the petitioner's injuries.”
Davis v. State, 144 Wash. 2d 612 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 4× “See RCW 4.24.200, .210. We hold the injury-causing condition in this case is not artificial and the State is not liable for the petitioner’s injuries.”
Ravenscroft v. Washington Water Power Co., 969 P.2d 75 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 2× “” RCW 4.24.200. See also Ochampaugh v. City of Seattle, 91 Wn.”
Nauroth v. Spokane Cnty., 88 P.3d 996 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “Washington's recreational use statutes (RCW 4.24.200 and .210) confer immunity on landowners who open property for recreational use.”
Bernstein v. State, 767 P.2d 958 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “2d 1362 (1979), which held that the Washington recreational land use immunity act, RCW 4.24.200 et seq., grants limited immunity to a public entity whose primary purpose is to provide recreational facilities such as a park to the public.”
Curran v. City of Marysville, 766 P.2d 1141 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “ting, gathering, and removing of firewood from the land: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall prevent the liability of such a landowner or others in lawful possession and control for injuries sustained to users by reason of a known dangerous artificial latent…”
Chamberlain v. Dep't of Transp., 901 P.2d 344 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “RCW 4.24.200, which addresses the purpose of the recreational use immunity statute, provides: The purpose of RCW 4.”
Lockner v. Pierce Cnty., 415 P.3d 246 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 2× “210 (emphasis added). This provision is meant to encourage landowners to open their land to the public for *532 recreation by limiting their liability toward persons injured or damaged by unintentional acts occurring thereon.”
Show all 50 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.