Wash. Rev. Code » Title 70 · Chapter 70.54
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 70.54.120 (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 procurement, processing, storage, distribution, administration, or use of whole blood, plasma, blood products and blood derivatives for the purpose of injecting or transfusing the same, or any of them, or of tissues, organs, or bones for the purpose of transplanting them, or any of them, into the human body is declared to be, for all purposes whatsoever, the rendition of a service by each and every person, firm, or corporation participating therein, and is declared not to be covered by any implied warranty under the Uniform Commercial Code, Title 62A RCW, or otherwise, and no civil liability shall be incurred as a result of any of such acts, except in the case of wilful or negligent conduct: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That this section shall apply only to liability alleged in the contraction of hepatitis, malaria, and acquired immune deficiency disease [immunodeficiency syndrome] and shall not apply to any transaction in which the donor receives compensation: PROVIDED FURTHER, That this section shall only apply where the person, firm or corporation rendering the above service shall have maintained records of donor suitability and donor identification: PROVIDED FURTHER, That nothing in this section shall be considered by the courts in determining or applying the law to any blood transfusion occurring before June 10, 1971 and the court shall decide such case as though this section had not been passed.
[ 1987 c 84 s 1; 1985 c 321 s 1; 1971 c 56 s 1.]

Notes:

Severability—1971 c 56: "If any provision of this act, or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1971 c 56 s 2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1985–2004 · leading case: Howell v. Spokane & Inland Empire Blood Bank, 785 P.2d 815 (Wash. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Howell v. Spokane & Inland Empire Blood Bank, 785 P.2d 815 (Wash. 1990). · cites it 12× “Initially, we must determine whether the 1985 amendment to RCW 70.54.120 applies retroactively to bar these claims based upon a blood transfusion occurring before the amendment was enacted.”
John Doe v. Puget Sound Blood Ctr., 819 P.2d 370 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 4× “RCW 70.54.120. [7] Third, the policy of this State should be to encourage donation of wholesome blood.”
Rogers v. Miles Labs., Inc., 802 P.2d 1346 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 7× “trine of strict liability is applicable to a for-profit pharmaceutical company for injuries allegedly resulting from the processing and supplying of blood products contaminated with HIV, the virus causing AIDS, where those blood products were derived from plasma obtained from…”
Young v. Key Pharm., Inc., 922 P.2d 59 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 4× “The plaintiff claimed that the defendant manufacturer should be held strictly liable under Washington law because the blood shield statute (RCW 70.54.120) excluded for-profit transactions from its protection.”
Garvey v. St. Elizabeth Hosp., 697 P.2d 248 (Wash. 1985). · cites it 4× “The trial court held defendant was immune from liability under RCW 70.54.120. Alternatively, the court held the furnishing of the blood by defendant was a "service" and not a "sale" and there was no strict liability or breach of implied warranty.”
Samson v. Greenville Hosp. Sys., 368 S.E.2d 665 (S.C. 1988). · cites it 2× “Compare § 44-43-10 with Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 70.54.120 (Supp. 1988) (exemption from implied warranties *367 does not apply to any transaction in which donor receives compensation) and N.”
Roberts v. Suburban Hosp. Ass'n, Inc., 532 A.2d 1081 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1987). “1987) (no liability for certain infectious diseases which cannot be detected by standardized testing); Wash.Rev.Code Ann. § 70.54.120 (Supp.1987) (no liability for hepatitis, malaria, or AIDS as long as records of donor suitability maintained).”
Weishorn v. Miles-Cutter, 721 A.2d 811 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998). · cites it 2× “Public Health Law § 580 (4) (McKinney 1994); Wash. Rev.Code Ann. § 70.54.120 (West 1996).”
Am. Nat. Red Cross v. Asd Spec. Healthcare, 888 So. 2d 464 (Ala. 2004). “9A, § 2-108 (1994); Washington, Wash. Rev.Code § 70.54.120 (2002); and West Virginia, W.”
Young for Young v. Key Pharm., Inc., 922 P.2d 59 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 4× “The plaintiff claimed that the defendant manufacturer should be held strictly liable under Washington law because the blood shield statute (RCW 70.54.120) excluded for-profit transactions from its protection.”
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.