Wash. Rev. Code » Title 51 · Chapter 51.36
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 51.36.040 (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 benefits of Title 51 RCW shall be provided to each worker receiving an injury, as defined therein, during the course of his or her employment and also during his or her lunch period as established by the employer while on the jobsite. The jobsite shall consist of the premises as are occupied, used or contracted for by the employer for the business of work process in which the employer is then engaged: PROVIDED, That if a worker by reason of his or her employment leaves such jobsite under the direction, control or request of the employer and if such worker is injured during his or her lunch period while so away from the jobsite, the worker shall receive the benefits as provided herein: AND PROVIDED FURTHER, That the employer need not consider the lunch period in worker hours for the purpose of reporting to the department unless the worker is actually paid for such period of time.
[ 1977 ex.s. c 350 s 59; 1961 c 107 s 2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1965–2014 · leading case: Boeing Co. v. Rooney, 10 P.3d 423 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Boeing Co. v. Rooney, 10 P.3d 423 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “015 and RCW 51.36.040, insofar as such time is immediate to the actual time that the worker is engaged in the work process in areas controlled by his or her employer, except parking area.”
Shelton v. Azar, Inc., 954 P.2d 352 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “015 and RCW 51.36.040,[ 22 ] insofar as such time is immediate to the actual time that the worker is engaged in the work process in areas controlled by his or her employer, except parking area.”
Boeing Co. v. Rooney, 10 P.3d 423 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “It is not necessary that at the time an injury is sustained by a worker he or she is doing the work on which his or her compensation is based or that the event is within the time limits on which industrial insurance or medical aid premiums or assessments are paid.”
Heim v. Longview Fibre Co., 707 P.2d 689 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 3× “015; RCW 51.36.040. The area where the accident occurred was clearly not an area "occupied" or "contracted for" by the employer, Longview Fibre.”
Hamilton v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 462 P.2d 917 (Wash. 1969). · cites it 2× “…for by the employer for the business of work process in which the employer is then engaged: ..." (Italics ours.) RCW 51.36.040.”
Taylor v. Cady, 566 P.2d 987 (Wash. Ct. App. 1977). “015 and RCW 51.36.040 state: "The benefits . . . shall be provided to each workman receiving an injury .”
Olson v. Stern, 400 P.2d 305 (Wash. 1965). “015 and RCW 51.36.040, except for an obvious typographical but immaterial error in the latter section: “ .”
Dillon v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 344 P.3d 1216 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “015; RCW 51.36.040. Even assuming that Bardahl employees dumping buckets of water falls within this definition, it is of no help to Dillon.”
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.