Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.035 (2026)
Authorized emergency vehicles
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle, when responding to an emergency call or when in the pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law or when responding to but not upon returning from a fire alarm, may exercise the privileges set forth in this section, but subject to the conditions herein stated.
(2) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle may:
(a) Park or stand, irrespective of the provisions of this chapter;
(b) Proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign, but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation;
(c) Exceed the maximum speed limits so long as he or she does not endanger life or property;
(d) Disregard regulations governing direction of movement or turning in specified directions.
(3) The exemptions herein granted to an authorized emergency vehicle shall apply only when such vehicle is making use of visual signals meeting the requirements of RCW 46.37.190, except that: (a) An authorized emergency vehicle operated as a police vehicle need not be equipped with or display a red light visible from in front of the vehicle; (b) authorized emergency vehicles shall use audible signals when necessary to warn others of the emergency nature of the situation but in no case shall they be required to use audible signals while parked or standing.
(4) The foregoing provisions shall not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons, nor shall such provisions protect the driver from the consequences of his or her reckless disregard for the safety of others.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: Chambers-Castanes v. King Cnty., 669 P.2d 451 (Wash. 1983).
Chambers-Castanes v. King Cnty., 669 P.2d 451 (Wash. 1983). “To now hold that this type of discretion, exercised by police officers in the field, cannot result in liability under RCW 46.61.035, due to an exception provided for basic policy discretion, would require this court to close its eyes to the clear intent and purpose of the…”
Brown v. Spokane Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 1, 668 P.2d 571 (Wash. 1983). “Petitioners alleged a violation of the district's statutory duty of care under RCW 46.61.035 and RCW 46.61.210. 1 *191 The district disputed any liability and contended Mr.”
Mason v. Bitton, 534 P.2d 1360 (Wash. 1975). “RCW 46.61.035 provides in part: (1) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle, when responding to an emergency call or when in the pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law or when responding to but not upon returning from a fire alarm, may exercise the…”
Bender v. City of Seattle, 664 P.2d 492 (Wash. 1983). “To now hold that this type of discretion, exercised by police officers in the field, cannot result in liability under RCW 46.61.035, due to an exception provided for basic policy discretion, would require this court to close its eyes to the clear intent and purpose of the…”
Kenneth J. Haugen v. Rochelle Brosseau Puyallup Police Dep't the City of Puyallup, 351 F.3d 372 (9th Cir. 2003). “See Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.035 . Officers in Washington may be held liable for injuries caused during high-speed chases, and, to comport with their state law duty of care, they must recognize “that at times it would be more prudent to cease a pursuit in order to protect the…”
DeWald v. State, 719 P.2d 643 (Wyo. 1986). “To now hold that this type of discretion, exercised by police officers in the field, cannot result in liability under RCW 46.61.035, due to an exception provided for basic policy discretion, would require this Court to close its eyes to the clear intent and purpose of the…”
LaPlant v. Snohomish Cnty., 271 P.3d 254 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “2 ¶8 Here, RCW 46.61.035(4) imposed upon the deputies a duty to “drive with due regard for the safety of all persons.”
Boyle v. Emerson, 561 P.2d 1110 (Wash. Ct. App. 1977). “operators of all other vehicles to be on the alert, and to immediately yield the right-of-way by driving *107 to a position parallel to, and as close as possible to, the right-hand edge or curb of the roadway clear of any intersection and shall stop and remain in such position…”
Honcoop v. State, 716 P.2d 963 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). “RCW 46.61.035(2)(c). It also provided that the driver bears "the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons" and shall not be protected "from the consequences of his reckless disregard for the safety of others.”
Brown v. Fire Protec. Dist., 668 P.2d 571 (Wash. 1983). “Petitioners alleged a violation of the district's statutory duty of care under RCW 46.61.035 and RCW 46.61.210. [1] *191 The district disputed any liability and contended Mr.”
McKasson v. State, 776 P.2d 971 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). “The court found a factual issue as to whether the officers violated RCW 46.61.035 which authorizes an emergency vehicle to exceed the speed limit, "so long as he does not endanger life or property", and requires persons to drive, "with due regard for the safety of all persons".”
Est. Of William D. Selander & P.r., V. Pierce Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “It argues that the deputies breached their duties under RCW 46.61.035, a statute addressing police pursuits; that the deputies’ breach was a concurrent proximate cause of Selander’s death; and that Washington’s tortious conduct was not intentional.”
Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.035(1): 2 cases
Michael Lang, Res/cross-app.. V. Platinum Nine Holdings, Llc, Apps/cross-res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
Karen Harder, Et Ano., V. City of Seattle, Et Ano. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.035(2): 2 cases
Boyle v. Emerson, 561 P.2d 1110 (Wash. Ct. App. 1977). “operators of all other vehicles to be on the alert, and to immediately yield the right-of-way by driving *107 to a position parallel to, and as close as possible to, the right-hand edge or curb of the roadway clear of any intersection and shall stop and remain in such position…”
Est. Of William D. Selander & P.r., V. Pierce Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “It argues that the deputies breached their duties under RCW 46.61.035, a statute addressing police pursuits; that the deputies’ breach was a concurrent proximate cause of Selander’s death; and that Washington’s tortious conduct was not intentional.”
Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.035(2)(c): 1 case
Honcoop v. State, 716 P.2d 963 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). “RCW 46.61.035(2)(c). It also provided that the driver bears "the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons" and shall not be protected "from the consequences of his reckless disregard for the safety of others.”
Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.035(2)(d): 1 case
Anthony v. C. D. Amende Co., 639 P.2d 231 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982).
Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.035(3): 1 case
Boyle v. Emerson, 561 P.2d 1110 (Wash. Ct. App. 1977). “operators of all other vehicles to be on the alert, and to immediately yield the right-of-way by driving *107 to a position parallel to, and as close as possible to, the right-hand edge or curb of the roadway clear of any intersection and shall stop and remain in such position…”
Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.035(4): 9 cases
Chambers-Castanes v. King Cnty., 669 P.2d 451 (Wash. 1983). “To now hold that this type of discretion, exercised by police officers in the field, cannot result in liability under RCW 46.61.035, due to an exception provided for basic policy discretion, would require this court to close its eyes to the clear intent and purpose of the…”
LaPlant v. Snohomish Cnty., 271 P.3d 254 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “2 ¶8 Here, RCW 46.61.035(4) imposed upon the deputies a duty to “drive with due regard for the safety of all persons.”
Brown v. Spokane Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 1, 668 P.2d 571 (Wash. 1983). “Petitioners alleged a violation of the district's statutory duty of care under RCW 46.61.035 and RCW 46.61.210. 1 *191 The district disputed any liability and contended Mr.”
Honcoop v. State, 716 P.2d 963 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). “RCW 46.61.035(2)(c). It also provided that the driver bears "the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons" and shall not be protected "from the consequences of his reckless disregard for the safety of others.”
Brown v. Fire Protec. Dist., 668 P.2d 571 (Wash. 1983). “Petitioners alleged a violation of the district's statutory duty of care under RCW 46.61.035 and RCW 46.61.210. [1] *191 The district disputed any liability and contended Mr.”
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.