Torts Archives — LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. WILLIAMS

March 6, 2025March 20, 2025

The Tort of Battery

Under Washington State laws, what is the tort of battery? Here’s my point of view.

IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our Williams Law Group Blog* or an official governmental website. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.

Advertisement

THE TORT OF BATTERY (WA STATE)

A tort is “[a] civil wrong, other than breach of contract, for which a remedy may be obtained, usu. in the form of damages; a breach of a duty that the law imposes on persons who stand in a particular relation to one another.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1526 (8th ed. 2004). The tort of “‘battery’ is an intentional and unpermitted contact with the plaintiff’s person.” Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 180 Wn.2d 481, 504, 325 P.3d 193 (Wash. 2014).

THE ELEMENTS

“A defendant is liable for battery if[:]

(a) he [or she] acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the [plaintiff or a third party], or an imminent apprehension of such contact, and

(b) a harmful or offensive contact with the [plaintiff] directly or indirectly results.

Id. (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 13 (1965)) (second-fourth alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).

Thus, “[a] person … commits a battery where he or she performs [a]n act which, directly or indirectly, is the legal cause of a harmful contact with another’s person and that act is intentional, is not consented to, and is otherwise unprivileged.” Id. at 504 (second alteration in original) (internal citations an quotation marks omitted).

Battery cases often involve one or more of the following Issues: (1) offensive bodily contact, (2) intent, (3) force, and (4) fraud/duress.

(1) OFFENSIVE BODILY CONTACT

In Washington, “[a] bodily contact is offensive if it offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity.” Id. (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 19). “Thus, an offensive contact does not have to result in physical injury to constitute a battery.” Id. (referencing Seigel v. Long, 169 Ala. 79, 53 So. 753 (1910) (“facts established claim for battery where defendant pushed plaintiff’s hat back in order to see his face”); Crawford v. Bergen, 91 Iowa 675, 60 N.W. 205 (1894) (“facts established claim for battery where defendant placed his hand on the plaintiff’s shoulder and asked him an insulting question”)).

Nature of the Contact: “[T]he ‘contact’ element of a battery is simply a harmful or an offensive contact with the plaintiff; thus, a battery can occur where, for example, the plaintiff comes in harmful contact with the ground but never touches the defendant.” Id. at 504 (internal citation omitted).

(2) INTENT

“[T]he ‘intent’ element of battery is satisfied where a defendant knows to a ‘substantial certainty’ that his actions will result in the harmful or offensive touching.” Id. at 504-05 (internal citation omitted).

(3) FORCE

“‘[F]orce’ is not an element of battery.” Id. at 504 (internal citation omitted).

(4) FRAUD/DURESS

“A person therefore commits a battery where he or she performs [a]n act which, directly or indirectly, is the legal cause of a harmful contact with another’s person and that act is intentional, is not consented to, and is otherwise unprivileged.” Id. at 504 (alteration in original) (internal citations an quotation marks omitted). “These elements are met where the plaintiff’s consent to the contact is procured by fraud or duress.” Id. at 505 (internal citations omitted).

LEARN MORE

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.

-gw

March 6, 2025March 6, 2025

What are the elements of Negligent Hiring in WA State?

Advertisement

FAQ: What are the elements of Negligent Hiring in WA State?

answer:

To successfully litigate an employment-based negligence claim, the plaintiff must establish the basic elements of negligence: duty; breach of duty; causation; and damages. In 2018, the Washington State Supreme Court* established the test (“Test”) for negligent hiring of an employee by adopting the following formulation used by the Courts of Appeals:

[T]o hold an employer liable for negligently hiring … an employee who is incompetent or unfit, a plaintiff must show that the employer had knowledge of the employee’s unfitness or failed to exercise reasonable care to discover unfitness before hiring or retaining the employee.

Anderson v. Soap Lake Sch. Dist., 423 P.3d 197, 206 (Wash. 2018) (citing Scott v. Blanchet High Sch., 50 Wash. App. 37, 43, 747 P.2d 1124 (1987) ; see also Carlsen v. Wackenhut Corp., 73 Wash. App. 247, 252, 868 P.2d 882 (1994) (“To prove negligent hiring in Washington, the plaintiff must demonstrate that … the employer knew or, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known, of its employee’s unfitness at the time of hiring.”)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:

» Negligent Hiring (WA State)

» Negligent Retention (WA State)

» Negligent Supervision (WA State)

NEED HELP?

If you need legal assistance, consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.

February 27, 2025

What are the elements of Negligent Supervision in WA State?

Advertisement

FAQ: What are the elements of Negligent Supervision in WA State?

answer:

To establish a prima facie case of negligent supervision, a plaintiff must show:

(1) an employee acted outside the scope of his or her employment;

(2) the employee presented a risk of harm to other employees;

(3) the employer knew, or should have known of the risk in the exercise of reasonable case that the employee posed a risk to others; and

(4) the employer’s failure to supervise was the proximate cause of injuries to other employees.

Briggs v. Nova Services, 135 Wn. App. 955, 966-67, 147 P.3d 616 (2006) (internal citations omitted) (paragraph formatting added).

We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:

» Negligent Hiring (WA State)

» Negligent Retention (WA State)

» Negligent Supervision (WA State)

NEED HELP?

February 20, 2025February 24, 2025

Definition of Tort

Under Washington State laws, what is the definition of the term “tort”? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

DEFINITION OF THE TERM “TORT”

Black’s Law Dictionary (Deluxe Eighth Edition) defines the term “tort” as follows:

[1.] A civil wrong, other than breach of contract, for which a remedy may be obtained, usu. in the form of damages; a breach of a duty that the law imposes on persons who stand in a particular relation to one another. [2.] … The branch of law dealing with such wrongs.

Id. at 1526. Thus, a civil wrong other than breach of contract is called a “tort”; correspondingly, a criminal wrong is called a “crime.”

EXAMPLES OF TORTS COMMONLY LITIGATED WITH CLAIMS UNDER EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LAWS

Examples of torts commonly litigated with claims under employment-discrimination laws include, but are not limited to the following:

1. Negligent Hiring

2. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress*

3. Negligent Misrepresentation

4. Negligent Retention

5. Negligent Supervision

6. The Tort of Battery

7. The Tort of Outrage (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)

need help?

If you need legal help, then consider contacting an experienced employment attorney to discuss your case; our law office litigates claims under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.

February 9, 2025February 19, 2025

Negligent Hiring (WA State)

Under Washington State laws, what is the tort of negligent hiring (a tort is a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, entitling the victim to remedies typically in the form of damages)? Here’s my point of view.

(IMPORTANT: This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)

Advertisement

NEGLIGENT HIRING IN WASHINGTON STATE

To successfully litigate an employment-based negligence claim, the plaintiff must establish the basic elements of negligence: duty; breach of duty; causation; and damages. In 2018, the Washington State Supreme Court established the test (“Test”) for negligent hiring of an employee by adopting the following formulation used by the Courts of Appeals:

RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS

In Anderson v. Soap Lake Sch. Dist., the Washington State Supreme Court determined that the Test “parallels the rule in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 307 (Am. Law Inst. 1965):

It is negligence to use an instrumentality, whether a human being or a thing, which the actor knows or should know to be so incompetent, inappropriate, or defective, that its use involves an unreasonable risk of harm to others.

Anderson, 423 P.3d at 206.

NEGLIGENT HIRING VS. NEGLIGENT RETENTION

Negligent retention is also a Washington State tort (I will address this legal theory in a separate article). According to the Anderson Court:

The difference between negligent hiring and negligent retention is timing. Negligent hiring occurs at the time of hiring, while negligent retention occurs during the course of employment.

Id. (internal citation omitted) (emphasis added).

CONCLUSION

Under the tort of negligent hiring, a plaintiff may hold an employer liable “for negligently hiring … an employee who is incompetent or unfit if the plaintiff shows that the employer had knowledge of the employee’s unfitness or failed to exercise reasonable care to discover unfitness before hiring or retaining the employee.” Id.

We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:

» Negligent Retention (WA State)

» Negligent Supervision (WA State)

need help?

If you need legal help, then consider contacting an experienced employment attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.

January 12, 2025January 30, 2025

Suing Local Government: The Tort-Claim Filing Statute

Under Washington State laws, what are the requirements of the tort-claim filing statute when pursuing claims against local government? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

SUING LOCAL GOVERNMENT — TORTIOUS CONDUCT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES AND THEIR AGENTS

In Washington State, the process and requirements for individuals to initiate legal proceedings against local (as opposed to state) government entities or their subdivisions are dictated by RCW 4.96*, known as the “Actions Against Political Subdivisions, Municipal and Quasi-Municipal Corporations” statute — or, simply, the “local government tort claim filing statute.”

This legislation details the procedures for filing claims against political subdivisions and municipal bodies–such as counties, cities, towns, special districts, municipal corporations as defined in RCW 39.50.010*, quasi-municipal corporations, any joint municipal utility services authorities, any entities created by public agencies under RCW 39.34.030*, or public hospitals–ensuring that these actions are handled with transparency and fairness while safeguarding public entities from excessive legal challenges.

THE RELEVANT LAW — RCW 4.96.010

The relevant law states as follows:

RCW 4.96.010
Tortious conduct of local governmental entities—Liability for damages.

(1) All local governmental entities, whether acting in a governmental or proprietary capacity, shall be liable for damages arising out of their tortious conduct, or the tortious conduct of their past or present officers, employees, or volunteers while performing or in good faith purporting to perform their official duties, to the same extent as if they were a private person or corporation. Filing a claim for damages within the time allowed by law shall be a condition precedent to the commencement of any action claiming damages. The laws specifying the content for such claims shall be liberally construed so that substantial compliance therewith will be deemed satisfactory.

(2) Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, for the purposes of this chapter, “local governmental entity” means a county, city, town, special district, municipal corporation as defined in RCW 39.50.010*, quasi-municipal corporation, any joint municipal utility services authority, any entity created by public agencies under RCW 39.34.030*, or public hospital.

(3) For the purposes of this chapter, “volunteer” is defined according to RCW 51.12.035*.

RCW 4.96.010* (emphasis and hyperlinks added).

Presentment and filing requirements — RCW 4.96.020

The associated “Presentment and Filing” section (RCW 4.96.020*) outlines the following procedures for filing claims for damages against local governmental entities, their officers, employees, or volunteers acting in an official capacity, specifically in cases involving tortious conduct.

1. Applicability of the Law — RCW 4.96.020(1)-(2)*:

The provisions apply to all claims for damages against local governmental entities and their officials. The governing body of each entity must appoint an agent to receive claims for damages, and this agent’s identity and contact information must be recorded with the county auditor.

2. Claim Presentment — RCW 4.96.020(2)*:

Claims must be submitted to the designated agent within the applicable statute of limitations. Claims are considered presented when they are delivered in person or “received by the agent by regular mail, registered mail, or certified mail, with return receipt requested, to the agent or other person designated to accept delivery at the agent’s office.” Id. If a local government entity fails to meet these requirements, it forfeits the right to raise certain defenses.

3. Claim Form Requirements — RCW 4.96.020(3)(a)-(b)*:

Starting from July 26, 2009, claims must be filed using a standard tort claim form, which is available on the Department of Enterprise Services’ (Office of Risk Management) website, except as allowed under (c) of this subsection.. The form must include:

(a) The claimant’s name, contact information, and date of birth.

(b) A description of the incident, injury, and the circumstances surrounding it.

(c) Details such as the time and place of the incident, names of involved individuals, and the amount of damages claimed.

(d) The claimant’s current residence at the time the claim arose and when the claim is presented.

The claim must be signed by the claimant or their authorized representative.

4. Availability of Forms and Instructions — RCW 4.96.020(3)(c), (e)*:

Local entities are required to make the standard form and instructions available and the name, address, and business hours of the agent of the local governmental entity.

“If a local governmental entity chooses to also make available its own tort claim form in lieu of the standard tort claim form, the form:

(i) May require additional information beyond what is specified under this section, but the local governmental entity may not deny a claim because of the claimant’s failure to provide that additional information[.]

(ii) Must not require the claimant’s social security number; and

(iii) Must include instructions on how the form is to be presented and the name, address, and business hours of the agent of the local governmental entity appointed to receive the claim.

RCW 4.96.020(c)*. “Presenting either the standard tort claim form or the local government tort claim form satisfies the requirements of this chapter*.” RCW 4.96.020(e)* (hyperlink added).

5. Waiver for Incorrect Forms — RCW 4.96.020(3)(d)*:

If the local entity’s form does not comply with the requirements or lists the wrong agent, the entity waives any defense related to those issues, including improper claim presentation or missing information.

6. Damages Statement — RCW 4.96.020(3)(f)*:

The amount of damages specified on the claim form is not admissible at trial.

7. Waiting Period Before Filing Suit — RCW 4.96.020(4)*:

A claimant cannot file a lawsuit for tortious conduct against any local governmental entity, or against any local governmental entity’s officers, employees, or volunteers, acting in such capacity, until at least 60 calendar days after properly presenting the claim to the agent. During this 60-day period, the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit is tolled (i.e., suspended). If a lawsuit is filed within five court days after this period, it is considered to have been filed on the first day after the 60-day waiting period.

8. Liberal Construction — RCW 4.96.020(5)*:

“With respect to the content of claims under this section and all procedural requirements in this section, this section must be liberally construed so that substantial compliance will be deemed satisfactory.” Id.

CONCLUSION

In Washington State, the local government tort-claim filing statute (i.e., RCW 4.96*) provides a structured process for filing tort claims against local governments in Washington State, with clear instructions regarding the necessary forms, deadlines, and requirements. It emphasizes a liberal approach to compliance to ensure that valid claims are not dismissed due to minor procedural issues.

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

» The Local Government Tort-Claim Filing Statute: Guiding Policies

LEARN MORE

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.

October 10, 2024October 21, 2024

The Tort of Outrage and Racially Discriminatory Action

Under Washington State law, can racially discriminatory action in employment form the basis for the tort of outrage (hereinafter, “tort of outrage” or “intentional infliction of emotional distress”)? Here’s my point of view.

IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our external blog or an official governmental website. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.

Advertisement

THE TORT OF OUTRAGE (ALSO KNOWN AS INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)

A tort is a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, for which remedies may be obtained. The tort of outrage is one type of tort (also known as intentional infliction of emotional distress). It is defined under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, as follows:

(1) One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for such bodily harm.

(2) Where such conduct is directed at a third person, the actor is subject to liability if he intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress

(a) to a member of such person’s immediate family who is present at the time, whether or not such distress results in bodily harm, or

(b) to any other person who is present at the time, if such distress results in bodily harm.”

Contreras v. Crown Zellerbach Corp.*, 88 Wn.2d 735, 745, n. 1, 565 P.2d 1173 (Wash. 1977) (emphasis added).

The Tort of Outrage and Racially Discriminatory Action

RACIALLY DISCRIMINATORY ACTION & THE TORT OF OUTRAGE

Racially discriminatory action can form the basis for a claim of outrage. According to the Washington State Supreme Court:

In Browning v. Slenderella Systems, 54 Wash.2d 440, 341 P.2d 859 (1959), we held recovery could be premised upon tort liability for emotional distress, unaccompanied by any physical injury where the victim was injured by racially discriminatory action.

Id.* at 739, 565 P.2d 1173 (emphasis added). Within the context of employment discrimination, positions of authority are significant when evaluating associated claims based on the tort of outrage.

Positions of authority

“When one in a position of authority, actual or apparent, over another has allegedly made racial slurs and jokes and comments, this abusive conduct gives added impetus to the claim of outrageous behavior.” Contreras*, 88 Wn.2d at 741, 565 P.2d 1173 (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 comment e). Thus, “[t]he relationship between the parties is a significant factor in determining whether liability should be imposed.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I believe racially discriminatory actions in employment can form the basis for the tort of outrage. The tort of outrage, or intentional infliction of emotional distress, is a crucial legal framework for addressing severe emotional harm caused by extreme and outrageous conduct. Defined under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, this tort highlights the accountability of individuals whose actions lead to significant emotional distress, even in the absence of physical injury.

Notably, racially discriminatory actions can serve as a foundation for such claims, as established by Washington case law. Furthermore, the dynamics of authority between the parties play a vital role in evaluating these claims, emphasizing that abusive behavior from those in positions of power can significantly exacerbate the impact of the distress. Depending on the circumstances of each case, understanding these elements may be useful for adequately addressing the complexities of emotional distress claims in civil law.

Learn More

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.

September 14, 2023October 21, 2024

Negligent Supervision (WA State)

Under Washington State laws, what is the tort of negligent supervision? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION IN WASHINGTON STATE

“Negligent supervision creates a limited duty to control an employee for the protection of a third person, even when the employee is acting outside the scope of employment.” S.H.C. v. Lu, 113 Wn. App. 511, 517, 54 P.3d 174 (Div. 1 2002) (citing Rodriguez v. Perez, 99 Wn. App. 439, 451, 994 P.2d 874, review denied, 141 Wash.2d 1020, 10 P.3d 1073 (2000) (citing Niece v. Elmview Group Home, 131 Wn.2d 39, 48, 929 P.2d 420 (1997))) (internal quotation marks omitted) (hyperlink added).

“Employer liability for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision arises from this duty.” Id. (emphasis and hyperlinks added). “If an employee conducts negligent acts outside the scope of employment, the employer may be liable for negligent supervision.” Id. (citing Rodriguez, 99 Wn. App. at 451, 994 P.2d 874) (hyperlink added)).

However: “An employer is not liable for negligent supervision of an employee unless the employer knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that the employee presented a risk of danger to others.” Id. (citing Niece, 131 Wn.2d at 48-49, 929 P.2d 420) (hyperlink added).

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

To establish a prima facie case of negligent supervision, a plaintiff must show:

(1) an employee acted outside the scope of his or her employment;

(2) the employee presented a risk of harm to other employees;

(3) the employer knew, or should have known of the risk in the exercise of reasonable case that the employee posed a risk to others; and

(4) the employer’s failure to supervise was the proximate cause of injuries to other employees.

Briggs v. Nova Services, 135 Wn. App. 955, 966-67, 147 P.3d 616 (2006) (internal citations omitted) (paragraph formatting added).

We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:

» Negligent Hiring (WA State)

» Negligent Retention (WA State)

need help?

June 29, 2023October 21, 2024

Vicarious Liability (WA State)

Under WA State laws, what is the proper inquiry for vicarious liability within the scope of employment law? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

VICARIOUS LIABILITY

A tort is a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, for which remedies may be obtained. Vicarious liability is “[l]iability that a supervisory party (such as an employer) bears for the actionable conduct of a subordinate or associate (such as an employee) based on the relationship between the two parties.” Black’s Law Dictionary 934 (8th ed. 2004).

Under Washington State law, after “an employee’s underlying tort is established, the employer will be held vicariously liable if ‘the employee was acting within the scope of his employment.'” Robel v. Roundup Corporation*, 148 Wn.2d 35, 53 (Wash. 2002) (citing Dickinson v. Edwards, 105 Wn.2d 457, 469, 716 P.2d 814 (1986)).

* (NOTE: This is an external link that will take the reader to our Washington Employment Law Digest.)

THE PROPER INQUIRY

The proper vicarious-liability inquiry is whether the employee was fulfilling his or her job functions at the time he or she engaged in the injurious conduct. See id. An employer may not insulate itself from vicarious liability merely by adopting a general policy proscribing bad behavior that would otherwise be actionable. Id.

DEFEATING A CLAIM OF VICARIOUS LIBAILITY

“An employer can defeat a claim of vicarious liability by showing that the employee’s conduct was[:]

(1) ‘intentional or criminal’ and

(2) ‘outside the scope of employment.’

Id. (citing Niece v. Elmview Group Home, 131 Wn.2d 39, 56, 929 P.2d 420 (1997) (emphasis in original), quoted with approval in Snyder v. Med. Servs. Corp. of E. Wash., 145 Wn.2d 233, 242-43, 35 P.3d 1158 (2001)) (paragraph formatting added).

However, intentional or criminal conduct is not per se outside the cope of employment. Id. at 53. Moreover, it is not the case that an employer will be vicariously liable only where it has specifically authorized an employee to act in an intentionally harmful or negligent manner. See id.

We invite you to read more of our tort-related blog articles:

» Elements of Negligent Misrepresentation

» Negligent Hiring (WA State)

» Negligent Retention (WA State)

» The Tort of Battery

» The Tort of Outrage

» WA State Torts: Public Disclosure of Private Facts

LEARN MORE

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.

April 13, 2023November 27, 2024

The Local Government Tort-Claim Filing Statute: Guiding Policies

Under Washington State law, what are the guiding policies (i.e., purposes) of the local government tort-claim filing statute? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

LOCAL GOVERNMENT TORT-CLAIM FILING STATUTE

A tort is a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, for which remedies may be obtained. Prospective plaintiffs intending to pursue tort claims against a Washington State local-governmental entity are required to conform to certain statutory requirements. See RCW 4.96. The relevant law states as follows:

RCW 4.96.010
Tortious conduct of local governmental entities—Liability for damages.

(1) All local governmental entities, whether acting in a governmental or proprietary capacity, shall be liable for damages arising out of their tortious conduct, or the tortious conduct of their past or present officers, employees, or volunteers while performing or in good faith purporting to perform their official duties, to the same extent as if they were a private person or corporation.

Filing a claim for damages within the time allowed by law shall be a condition precedent to the commencement of any action claiming damages.

The laws specifying the content for such claims shall be liberally construed so that substantial compliance therewith will be deemed satisfactory.

(2) Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, for the purposes of this chapter, “local governmental entity” means a county, city, town, special district, municipal corporation as defined in RCW 39.50.010, quasi-municipal corporation, any joint municipal utility services authority, any entity created by public agencies under RCW 39.34.030, or public hospital.

(3) For the purposes of this chapter, “volunteer” is defined according to RCW 51.12.035.

RCW 4.96.010 (paragraph formatting and emphasis added).

THE 60-DAY REQUIREMENT

Thus, a “local government entity is liable for damages arising from its tortious conduct to the same extent as if it were a private person or corporation.” Renner v. City of Marysville, 230 P.3d 569, 571, 168 Wash.2d 540 (Wash. 2010) (citing RCW 4.96.010(1)). “However, prospective plaintiffs must file a tort claim with the local government at least 60 days prior to filing a lawsuit.” Id. The relevant law is as follows:

RCW 4.96.020
Tortious conduct of local governmental entities and their agents—Claims—Presentment and filing—Contents.

…

(4) No action subject to the claim filing requirements of this section shall be commenced against any local governmental entity, or against any local governmental entity’s officers, employees, or volunteers, acting in such capacity, for damages arising out of tortious conduct until sixty calendar days have elapsed after the claim has first been presented to the agent of the governing body thereof.

The applicable period of limitations within which an action must be commenced shall be tolled during the sixty calendar day period.

For the purposes of the applicable period of limitations, an action commenced within five court days after the sixty calendar day period has elapsed is deemed to have been presented on the first day after the sixty calendar day period elapsed.

RCW 4.96.020(4) (paragraph formatting and emphasis added).

(IMPORTANT: There are additional filing requirements (e.g., access to standard forms, content, delivery, etc.) that will not be discussed in this article for the sake of brevity. Failure to conform to these additional requirements could result in severe consequences during litigation. The reader is strongly encouraged to both seek legal counsel and refer to RCW 4.96 for more information.)

GUIDING POLICIES

the CLAIM FILING STATUTE

“The claim filing statute is intended to provide local governments with notice of potential tort claims, the identity of the claimant, and general information about the claim.” Renner, 230 P.3d at 571 (emphasis added).

The TORT CLAIM

“The purpose of … [the tort] claim is ‘to allow government entities time to investigate, evaluate, and settle claims’ before they are sued.” Id (citing Medina v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 147 Wash.2d 303, 310, 53 P.3d 993 (2002)) (emphasis added).

LEARN MORE

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.

THE TORT OF BATTERY (WA STATE)

THE ELEMENTS

(1) OFFENSIVE BODILY CONTACT

(2) INTENT

(3) FORCE

(4) FRAUD/DURESS

LEARN MORE

FAQ: What are the elements of Negligent Hiring in WA State?

answer:

RELATED ARTICLES

NEED HELP?

FAQ: What are the elements of Negligent Supervision in WA State?

answer:

RELATED ARTICLES

NEED HELP?

DEFINITION OF THE TERM “TORT”

EXAMPLES OF TORTS COMMONLY LITIGATED WITH CLAIMS UNDER EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LAWS

need help?

NEGLIGENT HIRING IN WASHINGTON STATE

RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS

NEGLIGENT HIRING VS. NEGLIGENT RETENTION

CONCLUSION

RELATED ARTICLES

need help?

SUING LOCAL GOVERNMENT — TORTIOUS CONDUCT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES AND THEIR AGENTS

THE RELEVANT LAW — RCW 4.96.010

Presentment and filing requirements — RCW 4.96.020

1. Applicability of the Law — RCW 4.96.020(1)-(2)*:

2. Claim Presentment — RCW 4.96.020(2)*:

3. Claim Form Requirements — RCW 4.96.020(3)(a)-(b)*:

4. Availability of Forms and Instructions — RCW 4.96.020(3)(c), (e)*:

5. Waiver for Incorrect Forms — RCW 4.96.020(3)(d)*:

6. Damages Statement — RCW 4.96.020(3)(f)*:

7. Waiting Period Before Filing Suit — RCW 4.96.020(4)*:

8. Liberal Construction — RCW 4.96.020(5)*:

CONCLUSION

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

LEARN MORE

THE TORT OF OUTRAGE (ALSO KNOWN AS INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)

RACIALLY DISCRIMINATORY ACTION & THE TORT OF OUTRAGE

Positions of authority

CONCLUSION

READ MORE OF OUR RELATED ARTICLES

Learn More

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION IN WASHINGTON STATE

THE PRIMA FACIE CASE

RELATED ARTICLES

need help?

VICARIOUS LIABILITY

THE PROPER INQUIRY

DEFEATING A CLAIM OF VICARIOUS LIBAILITY

READ MORE

LEARN MORE

LOCAL GOVERNMENT TORT-CLAIM FILING STATUTE

RCW 4.96.010 Tortious conduct of local governmental entities—Liability for damages.

THE 60-DAY REQUIREMENT

RCW 4.96.020 Tortious conduct of local governmental entities and their agents—Claims—Presentment and filing—Contents.

GUIDING POLICIES

the CLAIM FILING STATUTE

The TORT CLAIM

LEARN MORE

RCW 4.96.010
Tortious conduct of local governmental entities—Liability for damages.

RCW 4.96.020
Tortious conduct of local governmental entities and their agents—Claims—Presentment and filing—Contents.