Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.040 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a product seller other than a manufacturer is liable to the claimant only if the claimant's harm was proximately caused by:

(a) The negligence of such product seller; or

(b) Breach of an express warranty made by such product seller; or

(c) The intentional misrepresentation of facts about the product by such product seller or the intentional concealment of information about the product by such product seller.

(2) A product seller, other than a manufacturer, shall have the liability of a manufacturer to the claimant if:

(a) No solvent manufacturer who would be liable to the claimant is subject to service of process under the laws of the claimant's domicile or the state of Washington; or

(b) The court determines that it is highly probable that the claimant would be unable to enforce a judgment against any manufacturer; or

(c) The product seller is a controlled subsidiary of a manufacturer, or the manufacturer is a controlled subsidiary of the product seller; or

(d) The product seller provided the plans or specifications for the manufacture or preparation of the product and such plans or specifications were a proximate cause of the defect in the product; or

(e) The product was marketed under a trade name or brand name of the product seller.

(3) Subsection (2) of this section does not apply to a pharmacist who dispenses a prescription product in the form manufactured by a commercial manufacturer pursuant to a prescription issued by a licensed practitioner if the pharmacist complies with recordkeeping requirements pursuant to chapters 18.64, 69.41, and 69.50 RCW, and related administrative rules.

[ 1991 c 189 s 2; 1981 c 27 s 5.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 40 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: Johnson v. Recreational Equip., Inc., 247 P.3d 18 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Johnson v. Recreational Equip., Inc., 247 P.3d 18 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 18× “RCW 7.72.040(1). In limited circumstances, however, product sellers are subject to "the liability of a manufacturer," including where "[t]he product was marketed under a trade name or brand name of the product seller.”

Johnson v. Recreational Equip., Inc., 159 Wash. App. 939 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 18× “Thus, according to REI, although product sellers are ordinarily liable only for negligence, breach of an express warranty, or intentional misrepresentation, pursuant to RCW 7.72.040(1), sellers of branded products may also be found liable, pursuant to RCW 7.”

Ruth Scott, V. Amazon.com, Inc., 559 P.3d 528 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 9× “RCW 7.72.040(1). Relying on RCW 7.72.040(1)(a) and (c), the purchasers allege that Amazon was negligent as a product seller and that it intentionally concealed information about the sodium nitrite on its website.”

Afoa v. Port of Seattle, 421 P.3d 903 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 3× “RCW 7.72.040. 8 WISHA requires employers to "comply with the rules, regulations, and orders promulgated under this chapter.”

Washburn v. Beatt Equip. Co., 840 P.2d 860 (Wash. 1992). · cites it 2× “See RCW 7.72.040(1)(a). The special verdict forms directed the jury to first determine whether defendant was a manufacturer and then, if the jury found that defendant was a manufacturer, to proceed to the special verdict form for determining liability on that theory.”

Martin v. Abbott Labs., 689 P.2d 368 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 2× “Moreover, RCW 7.72.040(2) (a) and (b) allow a plaintiff to bring an action against the seller of an allegedly defective product if the manufacturer is unavailable.”

Potter v. Wilbur-Ellis Co., 814 P.2d 670 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “This claim is more correctly a product liability action pursuant to RCW 7.72.040. Such an action may be brought against a product seller other than the manufacturer only if: the claimant's harm was proximately caused by: (a) The negligence of such product seller; or (b) Breach…”

Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., Inc., 896 P.2d 682 (Wash. 1995). “090; and negligence, RCW 7.72.040(1)(a). Clerk’s Papers, at 498-99.”

Washington Water Power Co. v. Graybar Elec. Co., 774 P.2d 1199 (Wash. 1989). “RCW 7.72.040. A product liability claim may be maintained against a manufacturer or other product seller notwithstanding an absence of contractual privity.”

Seals v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc., 688 F. Supp. 1252 (E.D. Tenn. 1988). · cites it 3× “Washington Wash.Rev.Code § 7.72.040(2) provides, in pertinent part: A product seller, other than a manufacturer, shall have the liability of a manufacturer to the claimant if: a.”

Alltrade, Inc. v. McDonald, 445 S.E.2d 856 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “78 (B) (7) (Anderson 1991); Wash. Rev. Code Ann., § 7.72.040 (2) (e) (1992).”

Buttelo v. S.A. Woods-Yates Am. Mach. Co., 864 P.2d 948 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “See RCW 7.72.040; Talmadge, Washington’s Product Liability Act, 5 U.”

Show all 40 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.040(1) — 11 cases

Johnson v. Recreational Equip., Inc., 247 P.3d 18 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “RCW 7.72.040(1). In limited circumstances, however, product sellers are subject to "the liability of a manufacturer," including where "[t]he product was marketed under a trade name or brand name of the product seller.”

Johnson v. Recreational Equip., Inc., 159 Wash. App. 939 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “Thus, according to REI, although product sellers are ordinarily liable only for negligence, breach of an express warranty, or intentional misrepresentation, pursuant to RCW 7.72.040(1), sellers of branded products may also be found liable, pursuant to RCW 7.”

Ruth Scott, V. Amazon.com, Inc., 559 P.3d 528 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “RCW 7.72.040(1). Relying on RCW 7.72.040(1)(a) and (c), the purchasers allege that Amazon was negligent as a product seller and that it intentionally concealed information about the sodium nitrite on its website.”

Potter v. Wilbur-Ellis Co., 814 P.2d 670 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “This claim is more correctly a product liability action pursuant to RCW 7.72.040. Such an action may be brought against a product seller other than the manufacturer only if: the claimant's harm was proximately caused by: (a) The negligence of such product seller; or (b) Breach…”

Fagg v. Bartells Asbestos Settlement Trust, 339 P.3d 207 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.040(1)(a) — 8 cases

Washburn v. Beatt Equip. Co., 840 P.2d 860 (Wash. 1992). “See RCW 7.72.040(1)(a). The special verdict forms directed the jury to first determine whether defendant was a manufacturer and then, if the jury found that defendant was a manufacturer, to proceed to the special verdict form for determining liability on that theory.”

Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., Inc., 896 P.2d 682 (Wash. 1995). “090; and negligence, RCW 7.72.040(1)(a). Clerk’s Papers, at 498-99.”

McCarthy v. Amazon.com Inc (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Scott v. Amazon.com, Inc. (Wash. 2026).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.040(1)(c) — 3 cases

McCarthy v. Amazon.com Inc (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Scott v. Amazon.com, Inc. (Wash. 2026).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.040(2) — 9 cases

Afoa v. Port of Seattle, 421 P.3d 903 (Wash. 2018). “RCW 7.72.040. 8 WISHA requires employers to "comply with the rules, regulations, and orders promulgated under this chapter.”

Martin v. Abbott Labs., 689 P.2d 368 (Wash. 1984). “Moreover, RCW 7.72.040(2) (a) and (b) allow a plaintiff to bring an action against the seller of an allegedly defective product if the manufacturer is unavailable.”

Seals v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc., 688 F. Supp. 1252 (E.D. Tenn. 1988). “Washington Wash.Rev.Code § 7.72.040(2) provides, in pertinent part: A product seller, other than a manufacturer, shall have the liability of a manufacturer to the claimant if: a.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.040(2)(a) — 3 cases

Sanns v. Butterfield Ford, 2004 UT App 203 (Utah Ct. App. 2004).

Sybil Coyne, V Wendianne Rook (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.040(2)(a)(b) — 1 case

Sybil Coyne, V Wendianne Rook (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.040(2)(b) — 1 case

Sybil Coyne, V Wendianne Rook (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.040(2)(c) — 1 case

Northbridge Gen. Ins. Corp. v. Phase II Transp. Inc (W.D. Wash. 2024).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.040(2)(e) — 6 cases

Brandon Apela Afoa, / Cross-app. v. Port Of Seattle, / Cross-res., 198 Wash. App. 206 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

Farmers Ins. v. Waxman Indus., Inc., 130 P.3d 874 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).

Sybil Coyne, V Wendianne Rook (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.040(l)(a) — 3 cases

Buttelo v. S.A. Woods-Yates Am. Mach. Co., 864 P.2d 948 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “See RCW 7.72.040; Talmadge, Washington’s Product Liability Act, 5 U.”

Bostwick v. Ballard Marine, Inc., 127 Wash. App. 762 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).

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.