Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 4.92.090 (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 state of Washington, whether acting in its governmental or proprietary capacity, shall be liable for damages arising out of its tortious conduct to the same extent as if it were a private person or corporation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 157
cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1964–2026 · leading case: Savage v. State, 899 P.2d 1270 (Wash. 1995).
Savage v. State, 899 P.2d 1270 (Wash. 1995). “Finally, Guffey does not address, let alone discuss, how its holding can be reconciled with the abolition of sovereign immunity in RCW 4.92.090. The Court of Appeals recognized that Babcock v.”
H.B.H. v. State, 429 P.3d 484 (Wash. 2018). “136, § 1 (codified as RCW 4.92.090 ). This waiver statute provides, "The state of Washington, whether acting in its governmental or proprietary capacity, shall be liable for damages arising out of its tortious conduct to the same extent as if it were a private person or…”
Paulson v. Cnty. of Pierce, 664 P.2d 1202 (Wash. 1983). “037, which grants statutory immunity to counties for noncontractual acts and omissions relating to flood protection, was impliedly repealed by RCW 4.92.090 and by RCW 4.96.010, which abrogate common law statutory immunity.”
Cook v. State, 521 P.2d 725 (Wash. 1974). “*601 RCW 4.92.090 (Laws of 1963, ch. 159, § 2, p.”
Oda v. State, 44 P.3d 8 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “In 1961, the Legislature waived the state’s sovereign immunity with respect to tort actions: The state of Washington, whether acting in its governmental or proprietary capacity, shall be liable for damages arising out of its tortious conduct to the same extent as if it were a…”
Oda v. State, 44 P.3d 8 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “In 1961, the Legislature waived the state's sovereign immunity with respect to tort actions: The state of Washington, whether acting in its governmental or proprietary capacity, shall be liable for damages arising out of its tortious conduct to the same extent as if it were a…”
McCluskey v. Handorff-Sherman, 882 P.2d 157 (Wash. 1994). “The Court of Appeals rejected the State's *9 theory that lack of funds may be considered in determining whether the State has complied with its duty to use reasonable care.”
Taggart v. State, 822 P.2d 243 (Wash. 1992). “Because we so hold, we need not reach the State's argument that the discretionary immunity exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity in RCW 4.92.090 also shields the Board's decision.”
Bender v. City of Seattle, 664 P.2d 492 (Wash. 1983). “Thereafter, we created the very narrow exception of discretionary governmental immunity in the case of Evangelical United Brethren Church v.”
Evangelical United Brethren Church v. State, 407 P.2d 440 (Wash. 1965). “1680 (RCW 4.92.090), 1 the pertinent portion of which reads: *252 The state of Washington, whether acting in its governmental or proprietary capacity, hereby consents to the maintaining of a suit or action against it for damages arising out of its tortious conduct to the same…”
Munich v. Skagit Emergency Commc'ns Ctr., 288 P.3d 328 (Wash. 2012). “136, § 1 (codified as RCW 4.92.090). And in 1967, the legislature expressly repealed immunity for local governments.”
Miotke v. City of Spokane, 678 P.2d 803 (Wash. 1984). “792, codified as RCW 4.92.090 and 4.96.010 respectively, the Legislature abolished sovereign immunity in Washington.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.92.090(2) — 2 cases
Washburn v. City of Fed. Way (Wash. 2013).
The-anh Nguyen v. City Of Seattle (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
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.