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

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.470 (2026)

Liability of officials and members of governing body of public agency—Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) An appointed or elected official or member of the governing body of a public agency is immune from civil liability for damages for any discretionary decision or failure to make a discretionary decision within his or her official capacity, but liability shall remain on the public agency for the tortious conduct of its officials or members of the governing body.
(2) For purposes of this section:
(a) "Public agency" means any state agency, board, commission, department, institution of higher education, school district, political subdivision, or unit of local government of this state including but not limited to municipal corporations, quasi-municipal corporations, special purpose districts, and local service districts.
(b) "Governing body" means the policy-making body of a public agency.
[ 1987 c 212 s 401.]

Notes:

Actions against local government for tortious conduct: Chapter 4.96 RCW.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2004–2024 · leading case: Baumgardner v. Town of Ruston, 712 F. Supp. 2d 1180 (W.D. Wash. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Baumgardner v. Town of Ruston, 712 F. Supp. 2d 1180 (W.D. Wash. 2010). “ause no valid contract existed between Plaintiffs and either the Kuchans or the McLeod, none of the Defendants knew of the potential contracts, Defendants’ acts were not designed to induce a breach and there was no breach or disruption of the relationship, 5) Plaintiffs’…”
Mills v. Zeichner (W.D. Wash. 2024). · cites it 9× “RCW 4.24.470 14 Lastly, Mr. Zeichner invokes RCW 4.”
Osborn v. Mason Cnty., 95 P.3d 1257 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “[4] Those subsections state: (5) An appointed or elected public official, public employee, or public agency as defined in RCW 4.24.470 is immune from civil liability for damages for any discretionary risk level classification decisions or release of relevant and necessary…”
Osborn v. Mason Cnty., 122 Wash. App. 823 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “Those subsections state: (5) An appointed or elected public official, public employee, or public agency as defined in RCW 4.24.470 is immune from civil liability for damages for any *820 discretionary risk level classification decisions or release of relevant and necessary…”
Doscher v. Timberland Reg'l Library (W.D. Wash. 2022). · cites it 2× “14 The Library Defendants move to dismiss claims brought against the Library’s board 15 members based, in part, on their immunity from suit under RCW 4.24.470(1). Dkt. 22. The 16 Plaintiff does not meaningfully address their arguments.”
Mikkelsen v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Kittitas Cnty. (Wash. 2017). “See RCW 4.24.470; RCW 54.12.110. We decline to address these issues because neither the trial court nor the Court of Appeals reached them.”
Stevens Cnty. ex rel. Tim Rasmussen v. Travelers Sur. & Cas. Co. (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). “The commissioners were not acting in their individual capacities when placing their votes.”
Boyd v. Constantine (W.D. Wash. 2022). “King County, for whatever 27 1 Plaintiff also concedes that claims against Defendants Constantine, Diaz, Hayes, and Karllson should be 28 dismissed because of their statutory immunity under RCW 4.24.470. See Dkt. #7 at 17. The Court agrees that this serves as an additional basis…”
Mills v. Zeichner (W.D. Wash. 2023). “Zeichner intends to argue he is immune from civil liability based 2 on the federal common law doctrine of qualified immunity, RCW 4.24.470, and his status 3 as a public school teacher.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.470(1) — 2 cases
Mills v. Zeichner (W.D. Wash. 2024). “RCW 4.24.470 14 Lastly, Mr. Zeichner invokes RCW 4.”
Doscher v. Timberland Reg'l Library (W.D. Wash. 2022). “14 The Library Defendants move to dismiss claims brought against the Library’s board 15 members based, in part, on their immunity from suit under RCW 4.24.470(1). Dkt. 22. The 16 Plaintiff does not meaningfully address their arguments.”
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.