Washington Torts Flashcards
7 cards from real WA BAR practice questions. Tap to flip, then mark Knew It or Still Learning — missed cards come back until you master them.
Read the first 7 Washington Torts flashcards as text
In a Washington trespass to land claim, which statement regarding the required intent is correct?
Answer: The defendant must have intentionally entered the land or caused something to enter, even if they believed they had permission
Trespass to land requires only the intent to enter the land (or cause an entry), not an intent to trespass wrongfully; a good-faith but mistaken belief in permission is not a defense.
Washington recognizes strict liability for which of the following?
Answer: Engaging in abnormally dangerous activities
Washington applies strict liability under the Restatement approach for abnormally dangerous activities that pose serious risks not capable of being eliminated through the exercise of reasonable care.
Washington has abolished which of the following common law tort immunities?
Answer: Charitable immunity from tort liability
Washington has abolished charitable immunity, allowing tort claims against charitable organizations for their negligent and wrongful conduct.
Under Washington's negligence per se doctrine, for a statutory violation to establish the standard of care, the plaintiff must demonstrate:
Answer: The plaintiff is within the class of persons the statute was designed to protect and the harm suffered is of the type the statute was designed to prevent
Washington's negligence per se doctrine applies when the plaintiff falls within the protected class and suffered the type of harm the statute aimed to prevent; the violation then sets the standard of care.
Under Washington's 'rescue doctrine,' a negligent defendant who endangers a primary victim is liable to a rescuer injured during the rescue because:
Answer: The defendant's negligence is the proximate cause of injuries sustained by a reasonable rescuer because rescue is a foreseeable response to created peril
The rescue doctrine holds that a defendant whose negligence created the peril is the proximate cause of a rescuer's injuries because it is reasonably foreseeable that someone will attempt a rescue.
What is the statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims in Washington, and does a statute of repose apply?
Answer: 3 years from the negligent act or 1 year from discovery (whichever expires later), with an 8-year statute of repose
RCW 4.16.350 provides three years from the act or one year from discovery, whichever expires later, but no action may be brought more than eight years after the negligent act or omission.
Under Washington premises liability law, how does an 'open and obvious' danger affect a landowner's potential liability to an invitee?
Answer: It is a factor considered in the comparative fault analysis but does not automatically negate the landowner's duty or bar the plaintiff's recovery
In Washington, the open and obvious nature of a hazard is factored into the comparative fault analysis and may reduce the plaintiff's recovery, but it does not automatically negate the landowner's duty of care or bar recovery.