Wash. Rev. Code » Title 72 · Chapter 72.09
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 72.09.320 (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 state of Washington, the department and its employees, community corrections officers, their staff, and volunteers who assist community corrections officers in the community placement program are not liable for civil damages resulting from any act or omission in the rendering of community placement activities unless the act or omission constitutes gross negligence. For purposes of this section, "volunteers" is defined according to RCW 51.12.035.
[ 1988 c 153 s 10.]

Notes:

Effective date—Application of increased sanctions—1988 c 153: See notes following RCW 9.94A.030.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 2000–2018 · leading case: Harper v. State, 429 P.3d 1071 (Wash. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Harper v. State, 429 P.3d 1071 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 2× “¶ 3 The question here is whether DOC is liable for Patricelli's death, despite Patricelli's, Miller's, and his mother's active and successful efforts to prevent DOC from knowing that Miller was in contact with Patricelli.”
Couch v. Dep't of Corr., 54 P.3d 197 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “See RCW 72.09.320, enacted in 1988, and RCW 9.”
Couch v. Wa. Dep't of Corr., 54 P.3d 197 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “See RCW 72.09.320, enacted in 1988, and RCW 9.”
Kelley v. State, 17 P.3d 1189 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “RCW 72.09.320. Kelley argues that because the statute applies only to the "rendering of community placement activities," it is "directed toward negligent conduct by third parties, such as treatment providers, furlough escorts, etc.”
Kelley v. Dep't of Corr., 104 Wash. App. 328 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “RCW 72.09.320. Kelley argues that because the statute applies only to the “rendering of community placement activities,” it is “directed toward negligent conduct by third parties, such as treatment providers, furlough escorts, etc.”
Whitehall v. King Cnty., 167 P.3d 1184 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 72.09.320; Couch, 113 Wn. App. at 566 n.”
Cathy Harper, Apps v. Washington State Dep't Of Corr., Resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “The statutory provision guiding whether DOC and its community corrections officers breached their take charge duty while rendering community placement activities is set forth in RCW 72.09.320. The statute provides: Community placement—Liability.”
Cathy Harper, Apps v. Washington State Dep't Of Corr., Resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “The statutory provision guiding whether DOC and its community corrections officers breached their take charge duty while rendering community placement activities is set forth in RCW 72.09.320. The statute provides: Community placement—Liability.”
James D. Mock v. State Of Washington, Dep't Of Corr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “RCW 72.09.320. The distinction between gross negligence and ordinary negligence is not important here because the standard of care is not at issue.”
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.