Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9 · Chapter 9.40
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.40.040 (2026)

Operating engine or boiler without spark arrester

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Every person who shall operate or permit to be operated in dangerous proximity to any brush, grass or other inflammable material, any spark-emitting engine or boiler which is not equipped with a modern spark-arrester, in good condition, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
[ 1929 c 172 s 1; 1909 c 249 s 272; RRS s 2524.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1971–2017 · leading case: Allstate Ins. Co. v. Peasley, 932 P.2d 1244 (Wash. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Peasley, 932 P.2d 1244 (Wash. 1997). “040 "[e]very person who shall operate or permit to be operated in dangerous proximity to any brush, grass or other inflammable material, any spark-emitting engine or boiler which is not equipped with a modern spark-arrester, in good condition, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”
Allstate Ins. v. Peasley, 131 Wash. 2d 420 (Wash. 1997). “040 "[ejvery person who shall operate or permit to be operated in dangerous proximity to any brush, grass or other inflammable material, any spark-emitting engine or boiler which *435 is not equipped with a modern spark-arrester, in good condition, shall be guilty of a…”
State v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pac. R.R., 484 P.2d 1146 (Wash. 1971). · cites it 7× “The stopping of appellant’s trains on both occasions was because of the state’s belief that the appellant had failed to equip the locomotives in question with modern spark arrest-ers as required by RCW 9.40.040. Thereafter, the appellant railroad was formally charged, tried and…”
State v. Chicago, M., St. P. & Prr Co., 484 P.2d 1146 (Wash. 1971). · cites it 7× “The stopping of appellant's trains on both occasions was because of the state's belief that the appellant had failed to equip the locomotives in question with modern spark arresters as required by RCW 9.40.040. Thereafter, the appellant railroad was formally charged, tried and…”
State Of Washington v. J.j., 3/28/99 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “argues that the trial court erred when it imposed a 10-day term of detention because RCW 9.40.040(2)(a)(iv), under which he pleaded guilty, does not carry a minimum 10-day term of detention.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.40.040(2)(a)(iv) — 1 case
State Of Washington v. J.j., 3/28/99 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “argues that the trial court erred when it imposed a 10-day term of detention because RCW 9.40.040(2)(a)(iv), under which he pleaded guilty, does not carry a minimum 10-day term of detention.”
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.