Wash. Rev. Code » Title 66 · Chapter 66.20
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 66.20.210 (2026)

Licensee's immunity to prosecution or suit—Certification card as evidence of good faith

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) No licensee or the agent or employee of the licensee may be prosecuted criminally or be sued in any civil action for serving liquor to a person under legal age to purchase liquor if such person has presented a card of identification in accordance with RCW 66.20.180, and has signed a certification card as provided in RCW 66.20.190.
(2) Such card in the possession of a licensee may be offered as a defense in any hearing held by the board for serving liquor to the person who signed the card and may be considered by the board as evidence that the licensee acted in good faith.
[ 2016 c 235 s 11; 1973 1st ex.s. c 209 s 9; 1971 ex.s. c 15 s 7; 1959 c 111 s 9; 1949 c 67 s 6; Rem. Supp. 1949 s 7306-19F.]

Notes:

Severability—Effective date—1973 1st ex.s. c 209: See notes following RCW 66.20.160.
Effective date—1971 ex.s. c 15: See note following RCW 66.20.160.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1978–1998 · leading case: Crowe v. Gaston, 951 P.2d 1118 (Wash. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Crowe v. Gaston, 951 P.2d 1118 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 3× “RCW 66.20.210; see also Schooley, 951 P.2d at 755-56 .”
Reynolds v. Hicks, 134 Wash. 2d 491 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 2× “RCW 66.20.210 provides the commercial vendor with a way to immunize itself from civil Lability for alcohol-related injuries resulting from the sale of alcohol to a minor.”
Reynolds v. Hicks, 951 P.2d 761 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 2× “RCW 66.20.210 provides the commercial vendor with a way to immunize itself from civil liability for alcohol-related injuries resulting from the sale of alcohol to a minor.”
Crowe v. Gaston, 134 Wash. 2d 509 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 2× “RCW 66.20.210; see also Schooley, 134 Wn.”
Callan v. O'NEIL, 578 P.2d 890 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). “We realize, for example, that documents of identification can be expertly forged or altered, and it would unreasonably interrupt business to require tavern keepers to positively establish the authenticity of such documents, at the risk of incurring civil liability.”
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.