Wash. Rev. Code » Title 86 · Chapter 86.12
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 86.12.037 (2026)

Liability of counties, cities, and other special purpose districts to others

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No action shall be brought or maintained against any county, city, diking district, or flood control zone district when acting alone or when acting jointly with any other county, city, or flood control zone district under any law, or any of its or their agents, officers, or employees, for any noncontractual acts or omissions of such county or counties, city or cities, diking district or districts, flood control zone district or districts, or any of its or their agents, officers, or employees, relating to the improvement, protection, regulation, and control for flood prevention and navigation purposes of any river or its tributaries and the beds, banks, and waters thereof: PROVIDED, That nothing contained in this section shall apply to or affect any action now pending or begun prior to the passage of this section.
[ 2010 c 46 s 1; 1921 c 185 s 1; RRS s 9663. Formerly RCW 87.12.180.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1983–2018 · leading case: Paulson v. Cnty. of Pierce, 664 P.2d 1202 (Wash. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Paulson v. Cnty. of Pierce, 664 P.2d 1202 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 19× “We accepted certification to consider the following question: Whether RCW 86.12.037, which grants statutory immunity to counties for noncontractual acts and omissions relating to flood protection, was impliedly repealed by RCW 4.”
Fitzpatrick v. Okanogan Cnty., 238 P.3d 1129 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 4× “III ¶ 11 At the outset, we address the question of whether the County and State have statutory immunity from the owners' inverse condemnation claim pursuant to former RCW 86.12.037 (1921) and RCW 86.16.071. Under former RCW 86.”
Fitzpatrick v. Okanogan Cnty., 169 Wash. 2d 598 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 4× “III ¶11 At the outset, we address the question of whether the County and State have statutory immunity from the owners’ inverse condemnation claim pursuant to former RCW 86.12.037 (1921) and RCW 86.16.071. Under former RCW 86.”
Halverson v. Skagit Cnty., 983 P.2d 643 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 3× “The County argued that if it were responsible for the levees, despite its lack of ownership, then it was immune from liability because (1) it had obtained a prescriptive easement to cause such flooding; (2) it had the right to cause such *7 flooding under the common enemy…”
Janaszak v. State, 173 Wash. App. 703 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “120 (exempting officials from liability in decisions relating to the treatment and care of mentally ill patients); RCW 86.12.037 *713 (providing immunity for city and county officials working to improve or control flood prevention measures).”
Fitzpatrick v. Okanogan Cnty., 143 Wash. App. 288 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “RCW 86.12.037 provides: “No action shall be brought.”
Fitzpatrick v. Okanogan Cnty., 177 P.3d 716 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “RCW 86.12.037 provides: "No action shall be brought .”
Gregory Regelbrugge, Apps./x-resps. v. Snohomish Cnty., Resp./x-app., 432 P.3d 859 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “" The trial court determined that claims based on the flood pian were barred by former RCW 86.12.037 (2004). The statute precludes suits against counties for acts or omissions “relating to the improvement protectionl regulation and control for flood prevention“: No action shall…”
Halvorson v. Skagit Cnty., 983 P.2d 643 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 3× “The County argued that if it was responsible for the levees, despite its lack of ownership, then it was immune from liability because (1) it had obtained a prescriptive easement to cause such flooding; (2) it had the right to cause such flooding under the common enemy doctrine;…”
Ryan M. Pszonka v. Snohomish Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “" The trial court determined that claims based on the flood plan were barred by former RCW 86.12.037 (2004). The statute precludes suits against counties for acts or omissions "relating to the improvement, protection, regulation and control for flood prevention": No action shall…”
Joseph Janaszak, Dds v. State Of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “120 (exempting officials from liability in decisions relating to the treatment and care of mentally ill patients); RCW 86.12.037 (providing immunity for city and county officials working to improve or control flood prevention measures).”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 86.12.037(2004) — 1 case
Ryan M. Pszonka v. Snohomish Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “" The trial court determined that claims based on the flood plan were barred by former RCW 86.12.037 (2004). The statute precludes suits against counties for acts or omissions "relating to the improvement, protection, regulation and control for flood prevention": No action shall…”
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.