Wash. Rev. Code » Title 51 · Chapter 51.12
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 51.12.010 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
There is a hazard in all employment and it is the purpose of this title to embrace all employments which are within the legislative jurisdiction of the state.
This title shall be liberally construed for the purpose of reducing to a minimum the suffering and economic loss arising from injuries and/or death occurring in the course of employment.
[ 1972 ex.s. c 43 s 6; 1971 ex.s. c 289 s 2; 1961 c 23 s 51.12.010. Prior: 1959 c 55 s 1; 1955 c 74 s 2; prior: (i) 1947 c 281 s 1, part; 1943 c 210 s 1, part; 1939 c 41 s 1, part; 1937 c 211 s 1, part; 1927 c 310 s 1, part; 1921 c 182 s 1, part; 1919 c 131 s 1, part; 1911 c 74 s 2, part; Rem. Supp. 1947 s 7674, part. (ii) 1923 c 128 s 1, part; RRS s 7674a, part.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 192 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1952–2026 · leading case: Cockle v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 16 P.3d 583 (Wash. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cockle v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 16 P.3d 583 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 6× “The 1971 Legislature also codified a principle already long recognized by our courts: "This Title shall be liberally construed for the purpose of reducing to a minimum the suffering and economic loss arising from injuries and/or death occurring in the course of employment.”
Cockle v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 142 Wash. 2d 801 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 6× “The 1971 Legislature also codified a principle already long recognized by our courts: “This Title shall be liberally construed for the purpose of reducing to a minimum the suffering and economic loss arising from injuries and/or death occurring in the course of employment.”
Jepson v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 573 P.2d 10 (Wash. 1977). · cites it 12× “Previously, RCW 51.12.010, as enacted in 1961, was limited to covering only those employments "inherently constantly dangerous" and "such inherently hazardous works and occupations.”
Michaels v. CH2M Hill, Inc., 171 Wash. 2d 587 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 4× “” RCW 51.12.010. To accomplish the legislative objective, our “ ‘guiding principle in construing provisions of the Industrial Insurance Act is that the Act is remedial in nature and is to be liberally construed in order to achieve its purpose of providing compensation to all…”
Michaels v. CH2M Hill, Inc., 257 P.3d 532 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 4× “" RCW 51.12.010. To accomplish the legislative objective, our "`guiding principle in construing provisions of the Industrial Insurance Act is that the Act is remedial in nature and is to be liberally construed in order to achieve its purpose of providing compensation to all…”
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Granger, 159 Wash. 2d 752 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 4× “” RCW 51.12.010. Of course, we may not construe the statute in a way that would lead to a “strained or unrealistic interpretation.”
Dep't v. Granger, 153 P.3d 839 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 4× “" RCW 51.12.010. Of course, we may not construe the statute in a way that would lead to a "strained or unrealistic interpretation.”
Kilpatrick v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 915 P.2d 519 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 6× “Thus, the policies behind the workers' compensation act, Landon's directive that we focus on the date of manifestation in latent occupational diseases, and the undisputed medical evidence compel the conclusion that the claimants' final asbestos-induced disease should be accorded…”
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Fankhauser, 849 P.2d 1209 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 4× “See RCW 51.12.010. The Department argues that claimants assumed the risk of injury as self-employers and thus should be considered the last "insurer on the risk" for purposes of applying the last injurious exposure rule.”
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Lyons Enter., Inc., 374 P.3d 1097 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 2× “(quoting RCW 51.12.010). The liberal construction of the IIA necessitates that all doubts be resolved in favor of coverage.”
Boeing Co. v. Heidy, 51 P.3d 793 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “” RCW 51.12.010. All doubts about the meaning of the Act must be resolved in favor of workers.”
Johnson v. Tradewell Stores, Inc., 630 P.2d 441 (Wash. 1981). · cites it 4× “Using this analysis, it is incontestable that the award of attorney and witness fees *743 under the provisions of RCW 51.52.130 does benefit the worker covered by industrial insurance.”
Show all 192 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.