Wash. Rev. Code » Title 7 · Chapter 7.72
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.020 (2026)

Scope

✓ 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 previous existing applicable law of this state on product liability is modified only to the extent set forth in this chapter.
(2) Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the recovery of direct or consequential economic loss under Title 62A RCW.
[ 1981 c 27 s 3.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: Washington Water Power Co. v. Graybar Elec. Co., 774 P.2d 1199 (Wash. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Washington Water Power Co. v. Graybar Elec. Co., 774 P.2d 1199 (Wash. 1989). · cites it 7× “WSTLA argues also that WPLA's reservation clause, RCW 7.72.020(1), evidences an intent to preserve common law remedies, rather than to preempt them.”
Stanton v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 866 P.2d 15 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 4× “See also Comment, Determining Recoverable Economic Harm Under the Washington Product Liability Act, 27 Gonz.”
Lenhardt v. Ford Motor Co., 683 P.2d 1097 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 2× “RCW 7.72.020(1). One of the more significant changes adopted by the Legislature was to change the standard of liability for design and warning/instruction defects.”
Macias v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc., 282 P.3d 1069 (Wash. 2012). “RCW 7.72.020(1). Moreover, with respect to failure to warn claims in particular, we have concluded that the legislature intended that the Act’s provisions themselves carry forward principles that we previously recognized under the common law.”
Bylsma v. Burger King Corp., 293 P.3d 1168 (Wash. 2013). “” RCW 7.72.020(1). By defining “harm” as “any damages recognized by the courts of this state,” the common law rules regarding damages were both preserved and allowed to develop.”
Howell v. Spokane & Inland Empire Blood Bank, 785 P.2d 815 (Wash. 1990). “See RCW 7.72.020. Both claims may be analyzed together for purposes of determining if summary judgment was properly granted.”
Falk v. Keene Corp., 767 P.2d 576 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “The Committee has considered arguments on the one hand that the only duty under the statute is a duty of ordinary care, and on the other hand that the prior law of strict liability still applies because it is not specifically modified by the statute (RCW 7.72.020), and because…”
Ayers v. Johnson & Johnson Baby Prods. Co., 797 P.2d 527 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “RCW 7.72.020 states: "The previous existing applicable law of this state on product liability is modified only to the extent set forth in this chapter.”
Lundberg v. All-Pure Chem. Co., 777 P.2d 15 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). “RCW 7.72.020(1). Section 4 of the Act, codified at RCW 7.”
Kerry L. Erickson, V. Pharmacia Llc., 548 P.3d 226 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “RCW 7.72.020(1) (“The previous existing applicable law of this state on product liability is modified only to the extent set forth in this chapter.”
MacIas v. Mine Saf. Appliances Co., 244 P.3d 978 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “Furthermore, Macias's focus on the "risk utility" and "consumer expectation" tests is misplaced. These tests are relevant for determining whether a product is "not reasonably safe," but they do not establish that a manufacturer outside of a dangerous product's chain of…”
Macias v. Mine Saf. Appliances Co., 158 Wash. App. 931 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “” RCW 7.72.020(1). In Macias’s brief discussion of the WPLA, he cites no language in the WPLA that would modify Simonetta’s and Braaten’s holdings, rooted in pre-WPLA law, that manufacturers outside of a dangerous product’s chain of distribution have a duty to warn.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.020(1) — 12 cases
Washington Water Power Co. v. Graybar Elec. Co., 774 P.2d 1199 (Wash. 1989). “WSTLA argues also that WPLA's reservation clause, RCW 7.72.020(1), evidences an intent to preserve common law remedies, rather than to preempt them.”
Lenhardt v. Ford Motor Co., 683 P.2d 1097 (Wash. 1984). “RCW 7.72.020(1). One of the more significant changes adopted by the Legislature was to change the standard of liability for design and warning/instruction defects.”
Macias v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc., 282 P.3d 1069 (Wash. 2012). “RCW 7.72.020(1). Moreover, with respect to failure to warn claims in particular, we have concluded that the legislature intended that the Act’s provisions themselves carry forward principles that we previously recognized under the common law.”
Bylsma v. Burger King Corp., 293 P.3d 1168 (Wash. 2013). “” RCW 7.72.020(1). By defining “harm” as “any damages recognized by the courts of this state,” the common law rules regarding damages were both preserved and allowed to develop.”
Lundberg v. All-Pure Chem. Co., 777 P.2d 15 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). “RCW 7.72.020(1). Section 4 of the Act, codified at RCW 7.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.020(2) — 2 cases
Washington Water Power Co. v. Graybar Elec. Co., 774 P.2d 1199 (Wash. 1989). “WSTLA argues also that WPLA's reservation clause, RCW 7.72.020(1), evidences an intent to preserve common law remedies, rather than to preempt them.”
Stanton v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 866 P.2d 15 (Wash. 1993). “See also Comment, Determining Recoverable Economic Harm Under the Washington Product Liability Act, 27 Gonz.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.020(4) — 1 case
Washington Water Power Co. v. Graybar Elec. Co., 774 P.2d 1199 (Wash. 1989). “WSTLA argues also that WPLA's reservation clause, RCW 7.72.020(1), evidences an intent to preserve common law remedies, rather than to preempt them.”
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.