Wash. Rev. Code » Title 5 · Chapter 5.40
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 5.40.050 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A breach of a duty imposed by statute, ordinance, or administrative rule shall not be considered negligence per se, but may be considered by the trier of fact as evidence of negligence; however, any breach of duty as provided by statute, ordinance, or administrative rule relating to: (1) Electrical fire safety, (2) the use of smoke alarms, (3) sterilization of needles and instruments used by persons engaged in the practice of body art, body piercing, tattooing, or electrology, or other precaution against the spread of disease, as required under RCW 70.54.350, or (4) driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, shall be considered negligence per se.
[ 2009 c 412 s 20; 2001 c 194 s 5; 1986 c 305 s 901.]

Notes:

Effective date—2009 c 412 ss 1-21: See RCW 18.300.901.
Short title—Implementation—2009 c 412: See RCW 18.300.900 and 18.300.902.
Preamble—Report to legislature—Applicability—Severability—1986 c 305: See notes following RCW 4.16.160.
Definition of body art, body piercing, and tattooing: RCW 18.300.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 97 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Hansen v. Friend, 824 P.2d 483 (Wash. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hansen v. Friend, 824 P.2d 483 (Wash. 1992). · cites it 8× “See RCW 5.40.050. The Legislature has abolished the common law doctrine of negligence per se for cases filed on or after August 1, 1986.”
Veridian Credit Union v. Eddie Bauer, LLC, 295 F. Supp. 3d 1140 (W.D. Wash. 2017). · cites it 4× “RCW 5.40.050. Thus, assuming Veridian can establish that Eddie Bauer violated a statute that fell within Iowa's negligence per se rule, it might be able to pursue such a claim under Iowa law, but not under Washington law.”
Pudmaroff v. Allen, 977 P.2d 574 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 9× “2d 1173 (1982), and RCW 5.40.050 require the issue of her negligence and Pudmaroff's comparative negligence be decided by a jury.”
Pudmaroff v. Allen, 138 Wash. 2d 55 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 9× “Regarding whether the issue of comparative negligence should have been submitted to the jury, the Court of Appeals noted as follows: Summary judgment was proper only if the evidence did not support an inference that Pudmaroff unsafely entered the crosswalk or continued crossing…”
Mathis v. Ammons, 928 P.2d 431 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 7× “11 In 1986, the Legislature enacted RCW 5.40.050. Effective in negligence cases filed on or after August 1, 1986, 12 it provides: A breach of a duty imposed by statute, ordinance, or administrative rule shall not be considered negligence per se, but may be considered by the…”
Doss v. ITT Rayonier, Inc., 803 P.2d 4 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 6× “Rayonier also argues that it has no duty arising out of a violation of the WISHA regulation, because the common law doctrine of negligence per se, based on violation of a statute or regulation, has been abolished in this state by RCW 5.40.050 (Laws of 1986, ch. 305, § 901).”
Joyce v. Dep't of Corr., 75 P.3d 548 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 5× “DOC Division of Community Corrections Division Directive 200.”
Est. of Kelly v. Falin, 896 P.2d 1245 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 4× “[2] In 1986, the Legislature adopted RCW 5.40.050, which prohibits a finding of negligence per se based on the violation of a criminal statute.”
Hough v. Ballard, 31 P.3d 6 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “only if it supports a reasonable inference as to approximately where the favored driver was when, in the exercise of reasonable care, he or she should have realized that the disfavored driver was not going to yield.”
Hough v. Ballard, 108 Wash. App. 272 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “only if it supports a reasonable inference as to approximately where the favored driver was when, in the exercise of reasonable care, he or she should have realized that the disfavored driver was not going to yield.”
Adkins v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 756 P.2d 142 (Wash. 1988). · cites it 2× “See RCW 5.40.050 (applicable to actions filed on or after August 1, 1986).”
Yurkovich v. Rose, 847 P.2d 925 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 5× “They argue that RCW 5.40.050 provides that breach of a duty imposed by statute or administrative rule may only be considered as evidence of negligence.”
Show all 97 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 5.40.050(3) — 1 case
Anna Chester v. Deep Roots Tatoo & Body Modification, 371 P.3d 113 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
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.