Washington
Washington Car Accident Laws: Fault, Insurance, and Your Claim
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 18, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 18, 2026. · 7 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Washington is an at-fault (tort) state that follows pure comparative negligence, so the at-fault driver's insurer pays for the other party's injuries and property damage, and your recovery is reduced by your share of fault but never completely barred, no matter how high your percentage.
Is Washington a no-fault or at-fault state?
Washington is a traditional at-fault (tort) state. It is not one of the twelve true no-fault states (Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North Dakota, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, or Utah), and it is not a choice state. Under Washington's tort system, the driver who caused the accident is financially responsible for the other party's bodily injuries and property damage. An injured party may file a liability claim directly against the at-fault driver's insurer or file a lawsuit seeking full compensatory damages, including pain and suffering, with no statutory threshold to satisfy first.
Washington does have an add-on PIP scheme under RCW 48.22.085, RCW 48.22.095, RCW 48.22.100, and WAC 284-20-300, but PIP is first-party coverage that pays your own medical bills and lost wages from your own policy. It does not restrict or limit your right to sue the at-fault driver in tort. There is no serious-injury verbal threshold and no minimum medical-expense dollar threshold required before you can pursue a third-party claim for pain and suffering against the at-fault driver.
How fault is shared: Washington's negligence rule
Washington follows pure comparative negligence under RCW 4.22.005. Under this rule, fault is divided among all parties as a percentage, and each party's recovery is reduced by their own share of fault. Crucially, even a plaintiff who is 90% at fault can still recover the remaining 10% of damages from the other party. Pure comparative negligence is the most plaintiff-friendly negligence standard and stands in sharp contrast to modified comparative-fault states (which cut off recovery at 50% or 51%) and pure contributory-negligence states (which bar all recovery if the plaintiff bears any fault at all).
For example, if you suffered $100,000 in damages but a jury finds you were 40% at fault, your recovery is reduced to $60,000. If you were 75% at fault, you could still recover $25,000. This rule applies to multi-vehicle accidents as well, where fault can be allocated across three or more parties. Because comparative percentages often become the central dispute in Washington auto cases, documenting the other driver's negligence from the scene forward is critical.
Minimum car insurance in Washington
Washington mandates liability insurance under RCW 46.30.020, which cross-references the minimum financial-responsibility amounts in RCW 46.29.090. Those minimums are 25/50/10: $25,000 for bodily injury or death of one person per accident, $50,000 for bodily injury or death of two or more persons in the same accident, and $10,000 for property damage per accident. Note that the property-damage floor is only $10,000, which can be exhausted quickly in a multi-vehicle crash or whenever a newer vehicle is involved.
Every Washington auto policy must offer uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage under RCW 48.22.030. This protection covers bodily-injury and property-damage losses when the at-fault driver has no insurance, insufficient coverage, or flees the scene (hit-and-run and phantom vehicles are included). A named insured or spouse may reject UM/UIM, but RCW 48.22.030(4) requires that rejection to be in writing. The statute states only that the named insured or spouse "may reject, in writing" the coverage; it imposes no signature requirement, so the signed rejection form most insurers use is an industry practice rather than a statutory element. Once rejected at original issuance (after July 24, 1983), UM/UIM is excluded from all future renewals of that policy unless later re-requested in writing.
PIP coverage must also be offered on every policy but is not mandatory to carry. If purchased, the minimum benefits under RCW 48.22.095 are $10,000 for medical expenses, $10,000 for income continuation, $2,000 for funeral expenses, and $5,000 for loss of services. PIP pays on a first-party basis regardless of fault and can cover gaps when the at-fault driver's liability limits are low.
How long you have to file: the statute of limitations
Washington sets a 3-year statute of limitations for personal-injury and property-damage tort claims under RCW 4.16.080(2). The clock generally starts running on the date of the accident. Wrongful-death claims under RCW 4.20.010 carry the same 3-year limitation period under RCW 4.16.080. Missing this deadline almost always results in permanent loss of the right to sue, regardless of how strong your case might otherwise be.
A few situations can toll (pause) the statute of limitations, including claims involving minors, parties who are legally incapacitated, or circumstances where the defendant concealed facts. If a government agency or government employee caused the crash, additional pre-suit notice requirements and shorter administrative deadlines may apply before you can file a civil lawsuit. Consulting an attorney promptly after a serious accident is the safest way to protect these deadlines. For a broader overview of Washington's civil limitations rules, see our Washington statute of limitations guide.
What a Washington car accident claim is worth
Washington car accident claims can include economic damages (medical bills, future treatment costs, lost wages, loss of earning capacity, and property damage) and non-economic damages (pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and loss of consortium). Because Washington follows pure comparative negligence, your total award is reduced by whatever percentage of fault is assigned to you, but you are never completely barred from recovery.
In practice, settlement value is shaped by several real-world factors: the severity of your injuries, how clearly the other driver was at fault, what medical documentation exists, and whether the at-fault driver carried adequate insurance. Washington's minimum liability limits of 25/50/10 mean that a seriously injured plaintiff can exhaust the other driver's policy quickly, making your own UM/UIM and PIP coverage critically important. Insurers often attempt to minimize payouts through early recorded statements and quick settlement offers before the full extent of injuries is known. Get a medical evaluation first, and consult an attorney before accepting any settlement.
Use our Washington car accident settlement calculator to estimate the range of your potential claim based on injury type and fault percentage.
What to do after a car accident in Washington
Your actions in the hours and days after a crash directly affect your ability to recover compensation. Follow these steps.
First, ensure safety. Move vehicles out of traffic if it is safe to do so, turn on hazard lights, and check on all parties for injuries. Call 911 immediately if anyone is hurt or if there is significant property damage.
Report the accident. Under RCW 46.52.030(1), unless a report is to be made by a law enforcement officer under subsection (3), the driver of any vehicle involved in an accident that results in injury to or death of any person, or in property damage above the state's reporting threshold, must file a written accident report with local law enforcement (the police chief within city limits, or the county sheriff or state patrol elsewhere) within four days. That opening carve-out matters in the common case where you call 911: when an officer investigates the crash and submits an investigator's report under RCW 46.52.070, you do not owe a separate written driver's report. A police report creates an official record of the other driver's information and initial fault observations.
Document the scene. Photograph the positions of all vehicles, visible damage, skid marks, traffic controls, and any injuries. Collect the other driver's name, license number, insurance carrier, and policy number. Get contact information from all witnesses while you are still at the scene.
See a doctor promptly. Some serious injuries, including whiplash, internal bleeding, and concussion, do not produce obvious immediate symptoms. A prompt medical evaluation both protects your health and creates medical records tying your injuries to the accident.
Be careful with insurers. Washington's tort system means the at-fault driver's insurer may contact you quickly with a settlement offer or request for a recorded statement. You are not required to give a recorded statement to the other driver's insurer, and accepting an early offer before your treatment is complete can waive your right to future compensation. When that offer arrives, have a Washington injury attorney look at it in a free claim review before you sign or give a statement (attorney advertising).
This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Car accident law varies by state and changes, and settlement values depend on the specific facts. For advice about a specific crash, consult a licensed attorney in Washington.
Related resources:
- Washington Car Accident Settlement Calculator
- Washington Hit-and-Run Laws
- Car Accident Laws by State (hub)
More Washington Laws
- Washington Dashcam Laws
- Washington Hit and Run Laws
- Washington Slip and Fall Laws
- Washington Statute of Limitations
- Washington Workers Compensation Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Washington a no-fault state?
No. Washington is not a no-fault state. It is a traditional at-fault (tort) state. The at-fault driver's liability insurer pays the other party's medical bills, lost wages, property damage, and pain and suffering. Washington is not among the twelve true no-fault states and has no serious-injury threshold requirement.
Is Washington an at-fault state?
Yes. Washington is an at-fault state. Injured parties file a claim against the driver who caused the crash and may sue that driver directly for full compensatory damages, including pain and suffering, without first meeting any no-fault threshold.
What is the statute of limitations for a car accident in Washington?
Washington gives you 3 years from the date of the accident to file a personal-injury or property-damage lawsuit (RCW 4.16.080(2)). Wrongful-death claims also carry a 3-year limit. Missing the deadline typically ends your right to sue. Claims against government entities may have shorter pre-suit notice requirements.
Can I still recover if I was partly at fault in Washington?
Yes. Washington follows pure comparative negligence under RCW 4.22.005. Your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault, but you are never completely barred from recovering, even if you were mostly at fault. For example, if you were 60% at fault for a $100,000 loss, you could still recover $40,000.
What are the minimum insurance requirements in Washington?
Washington requires drivers to carry at least 25/50/10 liability coverage: $25,000 for bodily injury per person, $50,000 per accident, and $10,000 for property damage (RCW 46.29.090). Insurers must also offer UM/UIM and PIP coverage, though both can be rejected in writing.
How much is my Washington car accident claim worth?
Claim value depends on the severity of your injuries, your share of fault, your medical costs, lost income, and the at-fault driver's insurance limits. Under pure comparative negligence your award is reduced by your fault percentage. Use our Washington car accident settlement calculator for an estimate, and consult an attorney for advice on your specific situation.
Does Washington require PIP coverage?
No. PIP is not mandatory in Washington, but every insurer must offer it. If you purchase PIP, the minimum coverage under RCW 48.22.095 is $10,000 for medical expenses. PIP pays from your own policy regardless of who caused the crash and does not limit your right to sue the at-fault driver.
Updates
Corrected the UM/UIM rejection rule to match RCW 48.22.030(4), which requires only a written rejection and not a signature, and added the RCW 46.52.030(1) carve-out that relieves drivers of the four-day report when an investigating officer files the report instead.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Re-cited Washington's general duty to report a crash to law enforcement to RCW 46.52.030; RCW 46.52.010 actually governs collisions with an unattended vehicle or fixed roadside property, not the general reporting duty.
Removed an unsupported claim that RCW 48.22.030 requires a bold, prominently placed UM/UIM rejection notice above the signature line; the statute's actual text only requires the rejection to be in writing.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Revised Code of Washington
§ 4.22.005Effect of contributory fault.In forcecited in 7 of our articles
In an action based on fault seeking to recover damages for injury or death to person or harm to property, any contributory fault chargeable to the claimant diminishes proportionately the amount awarded as compensatory damages for an injury attributable to the claimant's contributory fault, but does not bar recovery. This rule applies whether or not under prior law the claimant's contributory fault constituted a defense or was disregarded under applicable legal doctrines, such as last clear chance.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-15 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 95 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp. (Washington Supreme Court 1989, 112 Wash. 2d 636)“…ce Dolliver's discussion, on pages 684-85, of the effect of RCW 4.22.005 on Seay v. Chrysler Corp., 93 Wn.2d…”
- Keller v. City of Spokane (Washington Supreme Court 2002, 146 Wash. 2d 237)“…ative fault in 1981. Laws of 1981, ch. 27, § 8 (codified at RCW 4.22.005). RCW 4.22.005 states in part: In an…”
- Davis v. Globe MacHine Manufacturing Co. (Washington Supreme Court 1984, 102 Wash. 2d 68)“…ion of comparative negligence or comparative fault", citing RCW 4.22.005. We reject petitioner's argument for se…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Washington Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights, Truck Accident Laws in Washington (2026): Deadlines & Liability, Washington Wrongful Death Laws (2026): Deadlines & Who Sues
§ 46.29.090Requirements as to policy or bond.In force
(1) No policy or bond is effective under RCW 46.29.080 unless issued by an insurance company or surety company authorized to do business in this state, except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, nor unless such policy or bond is subject, if the accident has resulted in bodily injury or death, to a limit, exclusive of interest and costs, of not less than twenty-five thousand dollars because of bodily injury to or death of one person in any one accident and, subject to said limit for one person, to a limit of not less than fifty thousand dollars because of bodily injury to or death of two or more persons in any one accident, and if the accident has resulted in injury to, or destruction of, property to a limit of not less than ten thousand dollars because of injury to or destruction of property of others in any one accident.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 9 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Progressive Casualty Insurance v. Jester (Washington Supreme Court 1984, 102 Wash. 2d 78)“…ting from any future accident. RCW 46.29.070(1); see also RCW 46.29.090(1) (requiring minimum coverage of $25,0…”
- Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. McManemy (Washington Supreme Court 1967, 72 Wash. 2d 211)“…h. 169, § 69. The same monetary limits are now contained in RCW 46.29.090.…”
- Safeco Insurance v. Automobile Club Insurance (Court of Appeals of Washington 2001, 108 Wash. App. 468)“…ge). $25,000 for one person or $50,000 per accident. RCW 46.29.090. Mendoza, 140 Wn.2d at 671…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 46.30.020Liability insurance or other financial responsibility required—Violations—Exceptions.In force
(1)(a) No person may operate a motor vehicle subject to registration under chapter 46.16A RCW in this state unless the person is insured under a motor vehicle liability policy with liability limits of at least the amounts provided in RCW 46.29.090, is self-insured as provided in RCW 46.29.630, is covered by a certificate of deposit in conformance with RCW 46.29.550, or is covered by a liability bond of at least the amounts provided in RCW 46.29.090. Proof of financial responsibility for motor vehicle operation must be provided on the request of a law enforcement officer in the format specified under RCW 46.30.030. (b) A person who drives a motor vehicle that is required to be registered in another state that requires drivers and owners of vehicles in that state to maintain insurance or financial responsibility shall, when requested by a law enforcement officer, provide evidence of financial responsibility or insurance as is required by the laws of the state in which the vehicle is registered.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 11 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Quinn Kyrkos v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (Washington Supreme Court 1993, 121 Wash. 2d 669)“…alidly issued certificate of self-insurance from the State. RCW 46.30.020(1)(a). The City has obtained such a cer…”
- State v. Flake (Court of Appeals of Washington 1994, 76 Wash. App. 174)“…red liability insurance is not a crime. It is prohibited by RCW 46.30.020(l)(a), but the failure to provide proof…”
- S & K Motors, Inc. v. Harco Nat. Ins. Co. (Court of Appeals of Washington 2009, 213 P.3d 630)“…130 Wash.App. at 539 , 123 P.3d 519 . [24] See RCW 46.30.020; RCW 46.29.090. [25] Mut. of Enumcl…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 48.22.030Underinsured, hit-and-run, phantom vehicle coverage to be provided—Purpose—Definitions—Exceptions—Conditions—Deductibles—Information on motorcycle or motor-driven cycle coverage—Intended victims.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) "Underinsured motor vehicle" means a motor vehicle with respect to the ownership, maintenance, or use of which either no bodily injury or property damage liability bond or insurance policy applies at the time of an accident, or with respect to which the sum of the limits of liability under all bodily injury or property damage liability bonds and insurance policies applicable to a covered person after an accident is less than the applicable damages which the covered person is legally entitled to recover.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 280 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Clements v. Travelers Indemnity Co. (Washington Supreme Court 1993, 121 Wash. 2d 243)“…to meet the statutory requirement for written waivers under RCW 48.22.030(4). *249 Discussion…”
- Touchette v. Northwestern Mutual Insurance (Washington Supreme Court 1972, 80 Wash. 2d 327)“…ghn E. Evans, for respondent. HALE, J. Is the statute (RCW 48.22.030) relating to uninsured motorist coverag…”
- Britton v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America (Washington Supreme Court 1985, 104 Wash. 2d 518)“…ctive coverages. Laws of 1980, ch. 117, § 1, p. 361 (RCW 48.22.030). Under this 1980 enactment,…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Washington Hit and Run Laws: Penalties and What to Do
§ 48.22.085Automobile liability insurance policy—Optional coverage for personal injury protection—Rejection by insured.In force
(1) No new automobile liability insurance policy or renewal of such an existing policy may be issued unless personal injury protection coverage is offered as an optional coverage. (2) A named insured may reject, in writing, personal injury protection coverage and the requirements of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply. If a named insured rejects personal injury protection coverage: (a) That rejection is valid and binding as to all levels of coverage and on all persons who might have otherwise been insured under such coverage; and (b) The insurer is not required to include personal injury protection coverage in any supplemental, renewal, or replacement policy unless a named insured subsequently requests such coverage in writing. (3) The coverage under this section may be excluded as provided for under *RCW 48.177.010(6).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 17 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Wood v. Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance (Court of Appeals of Washington 1999, 97 Wash. App. 721)“…Wood asserts that the state of the law is different since RCW 48.22.085 required insurers to offer PIP benefits…”
- Albee v. Farmers Insurance (Court of Appeals of Washington 1998, 92 Wash. App. 866)“…ee asserts that the cooperation clause is not authorized by RCW 48.22.085(1). 17 That is true, but that also is…”
- Sherry v. Financial Indem. Co. (Washington Supreme Court 2007, 160 P.3d 31)“…rovide immediate funds regardless of fault. See generally RCW 48.22.085. Counsel for FIC during oral argument d…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 48.22.095Automobile insurance policies—Minimum personal injury protection coverage.In force
(1) Insurers providing automobile insurance policies must offer minimum personal injury protection coverage for each insured with benefit limits as follows: (a) Medical and hospital benefits of ten thousand dollars; (b) A funeral expense benefit of two thousand dollars; (c) Income continuation benefits of ten thousand dollars, subject to a limit of two hundred dollars per week; and (d) Loss of services benefits of five thousand dollars, subject to a limit of two hundred dollars per week. (2) The coverage under this section may be excluded as provided for under *RCW 48.177.010(6).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 14 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Boag v. Farmers Insurance (Court of Appeals of Washington 2003, 117 Wash. App. 116)“…y language directly conflicts with the specific language of RCW 48.22.095, a provision that controls benefit limi…”
- Schiff v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (Washington Supreme Court 2024)“…bill. Schiff, 24 Wn. App. 2d at 526. The court noted that RCW 48.22.095(1)(a) and RCW 48.22.005(7) require “an…”
- Stan Schiff, M.d., Ph.d., Resp/cross-pet V. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. Et Ano, Pet/cross-resp (Court of Appeals of Washington 2022)“…and hospital benefits of ten thousand dollars.” RCW 48.22.095(1)(a). “‘Medical and hospita…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 48.22.100Automobile insurance policies—Personal injury protection coverage—Request by named insured—Benefit limits.In force
If requested by a named insured, an insurer providing automobile liability insurance policies must offer personal injury protection coverage for each insured with benefit limits as follows: (1) Medical and hospital benefits of thirty-five thousand dollars; (2) A funeral expense benefit of two thousand dollars; (3) Income continuation benefits of thirty-five thousand dollars, subject to a limit of seven hundred dollars per week; and (4) Loss of services benefits of fourteen thousand six hundred dollars.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Joseph M. Thompson v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co. (Court of Appeals of Washington 2019, 438 P.3d 533)“…rough 5 of the bill into RCW 48.22.090, RCW 48.22.095, and RCW 48.22.100. The reviser created a new code section…”
- Ephrata Trucking Llc, Respondent/cr-appellants V. Phillip Traulsen, Appellant/cr-respondents (Court of Appeals of Washington 2024)“…nal personal injury protection limits as defined in RCW 48.22.100. Insurers may also offer other…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 4.16.080Actions limited to three years.In forcecited in 11 of our articles
The following actions shall be commenced within three years: (1) An action for waste or trespass upon real property; (2) An action for taking, detaining, or injuring personal property, including an action for the specific recovery thereof, or for any other injury to the person or rights of another not hereinafter enumerated; (3) Except as provided in RCW 4.16.040(2), an action upon a contract or liability, express or implied, which is not in writing, and does not arise out of any written instrument; (4) An action for relief upon the ground of fraud, the cause of action in such case not to be deemed to have accrued until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the fraud; (5) An action against a sheriff, coroner, or constable upon a liability incurred by the doing of an act in his or her official capacity and by virtue of his or her office, or by the omission of an official duty, including the nonpayment of money collected upon an execution; but this subsection shall not apply to action for an escape; (6) An action against an officer charged with misappropriation or a failure to properly account for public funds intrusted to his or her custody; an action…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-14 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 937 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Robinson v. City of Seattle (Washington Supreme Court 1992, 119 Wash. 2d 34)“…ly for the trial court's grant of HPO payment refunds under RCW 4.16.080(3), but also to what extent such consid…”
- Ruth v. Dight (Washington Supreme Court 1969, 75 Wash. 2d 660)“…tatute of limitations (RCW 4.16.010 *664 and RCW 4.16.080(2)); but defendant estate’s motion rest…”
- Tingey v. Haisch (Washington Supreme Court 2007, 159 Wash. 2d 652)“…applicable statute of limitation for Tingey’s action is the RCW 4.16.080(3) three-year limitation for oral contr…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Washington Motorcycle Accident Laws (2026): Deadlines & Helmets, Washington Slip and Fall Laws: Proving Premises Liability Under Pure Comparative Fault, Washington Statute of Limitations: Filing Deadlines by Case Type
§ 4.20.010Wrongful death—Right of action.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
(1) When the death of a person is caused by the wrongful act, neglect, or default of another person, his or her personal representative may maintain an action against the person causing the death for the economic and noneconomic damages sustained by the beneficiaries listed in RCW 4.20.020 as a result of the decedent's death, in such amounts as determined by a trier of fact to be just under all the circumstances of the case. (2) This section applies regardless of whether or not the death was caused under such circumstances as amount, in law, to a felony.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-06 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 122 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Herskovits v. Group Health Cooperative (Washington Supreme Court 1983, 99 Wash. 2d 609)“…f survival can be brought under the wrongful death statute, RCW 4.20.010. Confronted with these problems, and…”
- Philippides v. Bernard (Washington Supreme Court 2004, 151 Wash. 2d 376)“…entative of his estate, filed a wrongful death action under RCW 4.20.010. Philippides’ parents brought an action…”
- Gray v. Goodson (Washington Supreme Court 1963, 61 Wash. 2d 319)“…in a judgment during her lifetime, abate upon her death? RCW 4.20.010 provides in part: “When the death of…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Medical Malpractice Laws in Washington (2026): Deadlines & Caps
§ 46.52.030Accident reports.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) Unless a report is to be made by a law enforcement officer under subsection (3) of this section, the driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to or death of any person or damage to the property of any one person to an apparent extent equal to or greater than the minimum amount established by rule adopted by the chief of the Washington state patrol in accordance with subsection (5) of this section, shall, within four days after such accident, make a written report of such accident to the chief of police of the city or town if such accident occurred within an incorporated city or town or the county sheriff or state patrol if such accident occurred outside incorporated cities and towns. Nothing in this subsection prohibits accident reports from being filed by drivers where damage to property is less than the minimum amount or where a law enforcement officer has submitted a report. (2) The original of the report shall be immediately forwarded by the authority receiving the report to the chief of the Washington state patrol at Olympia, Washington. The Washington state patrol shall give the department of licensing full access to the report.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 11 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Guillen v. Pierce County (Washington Supreme Court 2001, 181 A.L.R. Fed. 741)“…ts” in RCW 46.52.080 refers to reports prepared pursuant to RCW 46.52.030(1) or .040 by persons involved in the a…”
- Gendler v. Batiste (Washington Supreme Court 2012, 174 Wash. 2d 244)“…o prepare accident reports for accidents on state highways. RCW 46.52.030 (Laws of 1937, ch. 189, § 135). Drivers…”
- Brown v. Pro West Transport Ltd. (Court of Appeals of Washington 1995, 76 Wash. App. 412)“…417 Failure to Comply With RCW 46.52.020 and RCW 46.52.030 We first decide whether there ex…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 46.52.070Police officer's report.In force
(1) Any police officer of the state of Washington or of any county, city, town, or other political subdivision, present at the scene of any accident or in possession of any facts concerning any accident whether by way of official investigation or otherwise shall make report thereof in the same manner as required of the parties to such accident and as fully as the facts in his or her possession concerning such accident will permit. (2) The police officer shall report to the department, on a form prescribed by the director: (a) When a collision has occurred that results in a fatality; and (b) the identity of the operator of a vehicle involved in the collision when the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the operator caused the collision.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 7 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Ago (Washington Attorney General Reports 2001)“…apply, is a police officer's report prepared pursuant to RCW 46.52.070 subject to public disclosure and cop…”
- Guillen v. Pierce County (Washington Supreme Court 2001, 181 A.L.R. Fed. 741)“…ent report” if operator is physically incapacitated); cf. RCW 46.52.070 (“Police officer’s report. (1) Any poli…”
- Lane v. City of Seattle (Washington Supreme Court 2008, 164 Wash. 2d 875)“…After all, state law requires police to report accidents (RCW 46.52.070) and school districts to educate specia…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- RCW 46.29.090 — Minimum liability limits (25/50/10)(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 46.30.020 — Mandatory liability insurance requirement(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 4.22.005 — Pure comparative fault(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 4.16.080 — 3-year statute of limitations for personal injury(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 48.22.030 — UM/UIM offer and written-rejection requirement(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 48.22.085, .095, .100 — PIP offer and minimum benefits(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- WAC 284-20-300 — PIP offer/minimums (Insurance Commissioner rules)(apps.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 46.52.030 — Driver's four-day accident report, subject to the officer-report carve-out in subsection (3)(app.leg.wa.gov)
Paid attorney referral. RecordingLaw may receive compensation when you use an attorney-help link. RecordingLaw is not a law firm. Submitting a request does not guarantee that an attorney will accept your case and does not create an attorney-client relationship.