Washington's Pure Comparative Fault Rule: How Shared Blame Affects an Injury Claim

After a crash, a fall, or another injury, one of the first things people wonder is whether their own mistakes will sink their claim. Maybe you were a few miles over the limit, glanced at a phone, or missed a warning sign. In Washington, that question has a statutory answer. The state follows a pure comparative fault rule: your share of the blame reduces what you can recover, but it does not, by itself, bar the claim.

This article explains how comparative fault works in Washington, how fault is divided among everyone who contributed to an injury, who pays which share, and the narrow situations where the law cuts off recovery entirely. It is general education, not legal advice about your situation. If you are sorting out an injury claim now, our personal injury practice page explains how we approach these matters.

The Core Rule: Your Fault Reduces Your Award, It Does Not Bar It

The starting point is RCW 4.22.005. In an action based on fault seeking damages for injury or death to a 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 that fault, but does not bar recovery. The statute adds that this rule applies whether or not the claimant's fault would have been a defense, or would have been disregarded under doctrines such as last clear chance, under prior law.

That is why lawyers call Washington's approach pure comparative negligence. Some states use a modified rule that cuts off recovery once the injured person's share reaches a threshold such as 50 or 51 percent. Washington's general statute has no threshold. A claimant found mostly at fault can still recover the share of damages attributable to others, unless one of the specific complete defenses discussed below applies.

What Counts as 'Fault' Under RCW 4.22.015

The word fault is defined broadly in RCW 4.22.015. It includes acts or omissions, including misuse of a product, that are in any measure negligent or reckless toward the person or property of the actor or others, or that subject a person to strict tort liability or liability on a product liability claim. The definition also covers:

• Breach of warranty
• Unreasonable assumption of risk
• Unreasonable failure to avoid an injury
• Unreasonable failure to mitigate damages

The last item matters after the accident, not just at the moment it happens. Because an unreasonable failure to mitigate damages is itself fault, a defendant may argue that part of a claimant's harm traces to choices made afterward. Whether a particular choice was unreasonable, and whether it actually caused additional harm, is a fact question.

Causation is built into the rule. The statute says legal requirements of causal relation apply both to fault as the basis for liability and to contributory fault. And when fault is compared, the comparison considers both the nature of each party's conduct and the extent of the causal relation between that conduct and the damages. A careless act that did not contribute to the harm should not shift the percentages.

How Fault Is Allocated Among Every Responsible Entity

Many injuries involve more than two people: a multi-car collision, a property owner and a maintenance contractor, a driver and an employer. RCW 4.22.070 governs those cases. In all actions involving the fault of more than one entity, the trier of fact (the jury, or the judge in a bench trial) determines the percentage of the total fault attributable to every entity that caused the claimant's damages. The percentages assigned to at-fault entities must add up to 100.

The statute lists who goes on that allocation:

• The claimant, or the person who suffered the injury or property damage
• Defendants and third-party defendants
• Entities the claimant has released, for example through a settlement
• Entities with any other individual defense against the claimant
• Entities immune from liability to the claimant, with one exception: entities immune under Title 51 RCW, the workers' compensation statutes, are not included

Including released and immune entities has a practical consequence. Judgment is entered against each defendant, except those released by the claimant, those immune from liability to the claimant, and those that prevailed on another individual defense, in an amount that represents that defendant's proportionate share of the claimant's total damages. A share of fault assigned to a released or immune entity is generally not shifted onto the remaining defendants. Who settles, when, and with whom can therefore affect what remains collectible.

Several Liability and the Joint-and-Several Exceptions

Under RCW 4.22.070(1), the liability of each defendant is several only and not joint. In plain terms, each defendant is ordinarily responsible for its own percentage of the damages and no more. If one defendant cannot pay, the claimant generally cannot collect that share from the others.

Joint and several liability in Washington survives in the situations the statute names:

• Acting in concert. A party is responsible for the fault of another person, or for payment of another party's proportionate share, where both were acting in concert.
• Agent or servant. A party is responsible for the fault of a person who was acting as its agent or servant.
• Fault-free claimant. If the trier of fact determines that the claimant was not at fault, the defendants against whom judgment is entered are jointly and severally liable for the sum of their proportionate shares of the claimant's total damages.

Note the limit in the fault-free exception: joint and several liability covers the sum of the shares of the defendants against whom judgment is entered. It does not reach the share assigned to a released or immune entity. Where a defendant is jointly and severally liable, contribution rights between defendants and the effect of a settlement are handled under RCW 4.22.040, 4.22.050, and 4.22.060. The statute also carves out certain claims, including actions relating to hazardous wastes or substances or solid waste disposal sites, tortious interference with contracts or business relations, and the manufacture or marketing of certain generic fungible products.

A Simple Hypothetical: Running the Numbers

The following example is hypothetical. The figures are invented to show the arithmetic only. They are not a case result and do not predict the value of any claim.

1. Assume a jury finds the claimant's total damages are $100,000 and allocates fault as follows: the claimant 20 percent, Driver A 50 percent, and Driver B 30 percent.
2. Under RCW 4.22.005, the claimant's 20 percent reduces the award proportionately. The claimant can recover up to $80,000 in total.
3. Because the claimant was partly at fault, liability is several. Judgment is entered against Driver A for $50,000 and Driver B for $30,000. If Driver B cannot pay, Driver A is not responsible for Driver B's share.
4. Change one fact: the jury finds the claimant 0 percent at fault, Driver A 70 percent, and Driver B 30 percent. Now the fault-free exception applies, and Drivers A and B are jointly and severally liable for the sum of their shares, $100,000. The claimant could collect the full amount from either one, and the drivers sort out contribution between themselves.
5. Change a different fact: the claimant is 0 percent at fault, but a third driver who settled and was released is assigned 10 percent, with Driver A at 60 percent and Driver B at 30 percent. Drivers A and B are jointly and severally liable for the sum of their shares, $90,000. The released driver's 10 percent is not added to their judgment.

The Two Complete Defenses

Pure comparative fault is the general rule, but two statutes create complete defenses to personal injury and wrongful death claims. When one applies, the claim is barred rather than reduced.

Intoxication plus more than 50 percent fault. Under RCW 5.40.060, it is a complete defense to an action for damages for personal injury or wrongful death that the person injured or killed was under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug at the time of the occurrence, that the condition was a proximate cause of the injury or death, and that the trier of fact finds the person more than fifty percent at fault. All three elements are required. Whether someone was under the influence is measured by the same standard used for criminal convictions under RCW 46.61.502. The statute also contains an exception for claims against an impaired driver: when the defendant driver was under the influence and that condition was a proximate cause, the defense does not apply merely because the injured person was also under the influence, so long as the injured person's condition was not a proximate cause of the occurrence.

Felony. Under RCW 4.24.420, except in an action arising out of law enforcement activities, it is a complete defense to an action for damages for personal injury or wrongful death that the person injured or killed was engaged in the commission of a felony at the time of the occurrence and the felony was a proximate cause of the injury or death. In actions arising out of law enforcement activities, the defense applies only if the finder of fact determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was committing a felony that was a proximate cause of the injury or death. The statute does not affect a right of action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.

Both defenses turn on proximate cause. Being impaired, or committing an offense, at the time of an accident does not by itself defeat a claim under either statute; the condition or the felony must have been a proximate cause of the injury or death, along with the other statutory elements.

Seat Belts: What the Statute Says

Washington's seat belt law requires occupants sixteen and older to wear a properly adjusted and fastened safety belt, and drivers to make sure child passengers are belted or in an approved restraint. But RCW 46.61.688(6) provides that failure to comply with those requirements does not constitute negligence, and that failure to wear a safety belt assembly may not be admitted as evidence of negligence in any civil action. In a Washington civil case, a claimant's failure to buckle up cannot be offered as evidence of the claimant's negligence.

How Comparative Fault Shows Up in Practice

Fault percentages are usually argued long before any jury sees them. Insurance adjusters assess comparative fault when they evaluate a claim, and the parties' views of the likely allocation shape settlement discussions. If a claim proceeds to a lawsuit, the allocation becomes a question for the trier of fact, and the evidence that supports or undercuts each party's share, such as scene photographs, vehicle data, witness accounts, and medical records, becomes central. Our civil litigation page describes how we handle matters that move into court.

Washington's comparative fault statutes are designed so that blame is shared the way it actually happened: your own fault reduces your recovery without eliminating it, each defendant generally pays its own share, and only narrow statutory defenses cut a claim off completely. Because the allocation and the identity of every responsible entity can change both the amount and who pays it, the details matter. If you have questions about how these rules may apply to your injury, visit our personal injury practice page or contact us. Nelson Allen Walk & Scott, PLLC is located at 1103 Shaw Road, Puyallup, WA 98372, and can be reached at (253) 845-8895.

Written by Nathan D. Sukhia, Of Counsel.