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

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.050 (2026)

Relevance of industry custom, technological feasibility, and nongovernmental, legislative or administrative regulatory standards

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Evidence of custom in the product seller's industry, technological feasibility or that the product was or was not, in compliance with nongovernmental standards or with legislative regulatory standards or administrative regulatory standards, whether relating to design, construction or performance of the product or to warnings or instructions as to its use may be considered by the trier of fact.
(2) When the injury-causing aspect of the product was, at the time of manufacture, in compliance with a specific mandatory government contract specification relating to design or warnings, this compliance shall be an absolute defense. When the injury-causing aspect of the product was not, at the time of manufacture, in compliance with a specific mandatory government specification relating to design or warnings, the product shall be deemed not reasonably safe under RCW 7.72.030(1).
[ 1981 c 27 s 6.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Timberline Air Serv., Inc. v. BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON, INC., 884 P.2d 920 (Wash. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Timberline Air Serv., Inc. v. BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON, INC., 884 P.2d 920 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 22× “At issue is whether a manufacturer who complies with mandatory government specifications for design of a military helicopter later converted to civilian use has an absolute defense to a postmanufacture products liability failure-to-warn claim under either RCW 7.72.050(2) or the…”
Falk v. Keene Corp., 782 P.2d 974 (Wash. 1989). · cites it 8× “We will not attempt here to anticipate the various contexts in which this type of question may arise, but briefly draw attention to the consistency between RCW 7.72.050 and RCW 7.72.030. Turning to the case at hand, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the instructions in…”
Lenhardt v. Ford Motor Co., 683 P.2d 1097 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 3× “See RCW 7.72.050(1). While the defendant admits that the statute is not binding in this case, see Laws of 1981, 1st Ex.”
In the Matter of Est. of Foster, 779 P.2d 272 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “She relies for this interpretation of RCW 7.72.050 on the statute's legislative history.”
Kim v. Toyota Motor Corp., 424 P.3d 290 (Cal. 2018). “2d 964 ; Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 7.72.050 (1) ["Evidence of custom in the product seller's industry, technological feasibility or that the product was or was not, in compliance with nongovernmental standards or with legislative regulatory standards or administrative regulatory…”
Crittenden v. Fibreboard Corp., 794 P.2d 554 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 3× “Under the act, however, the trier of fact may consider both kinds of evidence: (1) Evidence of custom in the product seller's industry, technological feasibility or that the product was or was not, in compliance with nongovernmental standards or with legislative regulatory…”
Soproni v. Polygon Apt. Partners, 971 P.2d 500 (Wash. 1999). “See RCW 7.72.050(1); Falk, 113 Wn.2d at 653-54 .”
Koker v. Armstrong Cork, Inc., 804 P.2d 659 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “For authority, the appellants rely on the Act, specifically RCW 7.72.050(1). Our determination that pre-Act law applies is fatal to their contentions.”
Ayers v. Johnson & Johnson Baby Prods. Co., 797 P.2d 527 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “Gordon Robinson, a human factors expert, testified that the then-existing label was almost the "opposite of a warning" because it perpetuated the "prior belief that the product is very safe, benign, that one needn't have any concerns for health and safety.”
Lockwood v. a C & S, Inc., 722 P.2d 826 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). “030(1)(b), (c) and RCW 7.72.050, which permit state of the art evidence and the state of the art defense in strict products liability claims thus do not apply to this case.”
Couch v. Mine Saf. Appliances Co., 728 P.2d 585 (Wash. 1986). “) RCW 7.72.050(1). This language lends additional support to the conclusion that an alternative, safe design is not a necessary element of the plaintiff's burden of proof.”
Hoglund v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 749 P.2d 164 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). “Raymark claims that this instruction is required by RCW 7.72.050(2), which provides: When the injury-causing aspect of the product was, at the time of manufacture, in compliance with a specific mandatory government contract specification relating to design or warnings, this…”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.050(1) — 12 cases
Falk v. Keene Corp., 782 P.2d 974 (Wash. 1989). “We will not attempt here to anticipate the various contexts in which this type of question may arise, but briefly draw attention to the consistency between RCW 7.72.050 and RCW 7.72.030. Turning to the case at hand, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the instructions in…”
Lenhardt v. Ford Motor Co., 683 P.2d 1097 (Wash. 1984). “See RCW 7.72.050(1). While the defendant admits that the statute is not binding in this case, see Laws of 1981, 1st Ex.”
Crittenden v. Fibreboard Corp., 794 P.2d 554 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “Under the act, however, the trier of fact may consider both kinds of evidence: (1) Evidence of custom in the product seller's industry, technological feasibility or that the product was or was not, in compliance with nongovernmental standards or with legislative regulatory…”
Soproni v. Polygon Apt. Partners, 971 P.2d 500 (Wash. 1999). “See RCW 7.72.050(1); Falk, 113 Wn.2d at 653-54 .”
Koker v. Armstrong Cork, Inc., 804 P.2d 659 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “For authority, the appellants rely on the Act, specifically RCW 7.72.050(1). Our determination that pre-Act law applies is fatal to their contentions.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.050(2) — 5 cases
Timberline Air Serv., Inc. v. BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON, INC., 884 P.2d 920 (Wash. 1994). “At issue is whether a manufacturer who complies with mandatory government specifications for design of a military helicopter later converted to civilian use has an absolute defense to a postmanufacture products liability failure-to-warn claim under either RCW 7.72.050(2) or the…”
In the Matter of Est. of Foster, 779 P.2d 272 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). “She relies for this interpretation of RCW 7.72.050 on the statute's legislative history.”
Hoglund v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 749 P.2d 164 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). “Raymark claims that this instruction is required by RCW 7.72.050(2), which provides: When the injury-causing aspect of the product was, at the time of manufacture, in compliance with a specific mandatory government contract specification relating to design or warnings, this…”
Graham v. Concord Constr., Inc., 999 P.2d 1264 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).
Graham v. Concord Constr., Inc., 100 Wash. App. 851 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).
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.