Wash. Rev. Code » Title 71 · Chapter 71.05
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 71.05.120 (2026)

Exemptions from liability

✓ 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 officer of a public or private agency, nor the superintendent, professional person in charge, his or her professional designee, or attending staff of any such agency, nor any public official performing functions necessary to the administration of this chapter, nor peace officer responsible for detaining a person pursuant to this chapter, nor any designated crisis responder, nor the state, a unit of local government, an evaluation and treatment facility, a secure withdrawal management and stabilization facility, or an approved substance use disorder treatment program shall be civilly or criminally liable for performing duties pursuant to this chapter with regard to the decision of whether to admit, discharge, release, administer antipsychotic medications, or detain a person for evaluation and treatment: PROVIDED, That such duties were performed in good faith and without gross negligence.
(2) Peace officers and their employing agencies are not liable for the referral of a person, or the failure to refer a person, to a behavioral health agency pursuant to a policy adopted pursuant to RCW 71.05.457 if such action or inaction is taken in good faith and without gross negligence.
(3) This section does not relieve a person from giving the required notices under RCW 71.05.330(2) or 71.05.340(1)(b), or the duty to warn or to take reasonable precautions to provide protection from violent behavior where the patient has communicated an actual threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or victims. The duty to warn or to take reasonable precautions to provide protection from violent behavior is discharged if reasonable efforts are made to communicate the threat to the victim or victims and to law enforcement personnel.
[ 2020 c 302 s 11; 2019 c 446 s 22. Prior: 2016 sp.s. c 29 s 208; 2016 c 158 s 4; 2000 c 94 s 4; 1991 c 105 s 2; 1989 c 120 s 3; 1987 c 212 s 301; 1979 ex.s. c 215 s 7; 1974 ex.s. c 145 s 7; 1973 2nd ex.s. c 24 s 5; 1973 1st ex.s. c 142 s 17.]

Notes:

Effective dates—2016 sp.s. c 29: See note following RCW 71.05.760.
Short title—Right of action—2016 sp.s. c 29: See notes following RCW 71.05.010.
Finding—Intent—2016 c 158: See note following RCW 71.05.455.
Severability—1991 c 105: See note following RCW 71.05.215.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Volk v. DeMeerleer
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Volk v. DeMeerleer, 337 P.3d 372 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 26× “RCW 71.05.120 provides immunity to the mental health professional in the context of an involuntary commitment of the patient, unless the patient identifies a target of violence or unless the professional is grossly negligent or acts in bad faith.”
Volk v. DeMeerleer, 386 P.3d 254 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 4× “Ashby and the Clinic claimed immunity for their failure to have DeMeerleer committed under RCW 71.05.120, and argued they had no duty to warn Schiering because DeMeerleer never communicated an “ ‘actual threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or…”
Est. of Davis v. Dep't of Corr., 113 P.3d 487 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 7× “¶11 Arguing it was immune from liability pursuant to RCW 71.05.120, Stevens County moved for summary judgment.”
Luchtel v. Hagemann, 623 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “Wash. Rev.Code § 71.05.120. Because the officers had reasonable cause to detain and reasonably detained Luchtel, they cannot be liable for negligence.”
Petersen v. State, 671 P.2d 230 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 2× “The trial court did not abuse its discretion by presenting RCW 71.05.120 to the jury in the form of an instruction.”
Spencer v. King Cnty., 692 P.2d 874 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 6× “State Law Claims The principal issue on appeal is if King County and the individual defendants are immune from tort liability under RCW 71.05.120, which states: Exemptions from liability.”
In re the Det. of C.W., 147 Wash. 2d 259 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “They argue that RCW 71.05.120 limits the liability of CDMHPs and ED staff to only those situations involving gross negligence and that RCW 71.”
In Re Det. of CW, 53 P.3d 979 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “They argue that RCW 71.05.120 limits the liability of CDMHPs and ED staff to only those situations involving gross negligence and that RCW 71.”
Hertog v. City of Seattle, 138 Wash. 2d 265 (Wash. 1999). “212, § 301(1) (codified at RCW 71.05.120(1)), with respect to the liability of the State.”
HERTOG, EX REL., SAH v. City of Seattle, 979 P.2d 400 (Wash. 1999). “212, § 301(1) (codified at RCW 71.05.120(1)), with respect to the liability of the State.”
McCluskey v. Handorff-Sherman, 882 P.2d 157 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 2× “It is significant that when the Legislature intends to provide immunity, it does so specifically as in qualified immunity for certain recreational uses, *16 RCW 4.”
Janaszak v. State, 173 Wash. App. 703 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “070 (immunizing peace officers for arrests or other actions arising from domestic violence incidents); RCW 71.05.120 (exempting officials from liability in decisions relating to the treatment and care of mentally ill patients); RCW 86.”
Show all 41 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.05.120(1) — 21 cases
Volk v. DeMeerleer, 337 P.3d 372 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “RCW 71.05.120 provides immunity to the mental health professional in the context of an involuntary commitment of the patient, unless the patient identifies a target of violence or unless the professional is grossly negligent or acts in bad faith.”
Hertog v. City of Seattle, 138 Wash. 2d 265 (Wash. 1999). “212, § 301(1) (codified at RCW 71.05.120(1)), with respect to the liability of the State.”
HERTOG, EX REL., SAH v. City of Seattle, 979 P.2d 400 (Wash. 1999). “212, § 301(1) (codified at RCW 71.05.120(1)), with respect to the liability of the State.”
In re the Det. of C.W., 147 Wash. 2d 259 (Wash. 2002). “They argue that RCW 71.05.120 limits the liability of CDMHPs and ED staff to only those situations involving gross negligence and that RCW 71.”
In Re Det. of CW, 53 P.3d 979 (Wash. 2002). “They argue that RCW 71.05.120 limits the liability of CDMHPs and ED staff to only those situations involving gross negligence and that RCW 71.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.05.120(2) — 5 cases
Volk v. DeMeerleer, 337 P.3d 372 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “RCW 71.05.120 provides immunity to the mental health professional in the context of an involuntary commitment of the patient, unless the patient identifies a target of violence or unless the professional is grossly negligent or acts in bad faith.”
Volk v. DeMeerleer, 386 P.3d 254 (Wash. 2016). “Ashby and the Clinic claimed immunity for their failure to have DeMeerleer committed under RCW 71.05.120, and argued they had no duty to warn Schiering because DeMeerleer never communicated an “ ‘actual threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or…”
Brian P. Winkler v. James \Jim\" B. Demeerleer" (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
Volk v. DeMeerleer (Wash. 2016).
Volk v. DeMeerleer (Wash. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.05.120(3) — 3 cases
Volk v. DeMeerleer, 386 P.3d 254 (Wash. 2016). “Ashby and the Clinic claimed immunity for their failure to have DeMeerleer committed under RCW 71.05.120, and argued they had no duty to warn Schiering because DeMeerleer never communicated an “ ‘actual threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or…”
Volk v. DeMeerleer (Wash. 2016).
Volk v. DeMeerleer (Wash. 2016).
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.