Suing the City, the County, or a School District in Washington: The Claim You Have to File First

Washington governments are liable, and that is the starting point

Washington gave up most of its immunity from tort suits decades ago, and for local government the statute says so plainly. RCW 4.96.010(1) makes all local governmental entities liable for damages arising out of their own tortious conduct, or that of their officers, employees, and volunteers acting in their official duties, "to the same extent as if they were a private person or corporation." Whether the entity was acting in a governmental or a proprietary capacity does not matter.

The same section then attaches the condition that catches people: "Filing a claim for damages within the time allowed by law shall be a condition precedent to the commencement of any action claiming damages." A condition precedent is not a formality. It is a thing that has to have happened before a lawsuit can exist.

RCW 4.96.010(2) defines local governmental entity broadly: a county, a city, a town, a special district, a municipal or quasi-municipal corporation, a joint municipal utility services authority, an entity created by interlocal agreement, or a public hospital. That sweeps in school districts, fire districts, transit authorities, ports, public utility districts, and hospital districts.

Can I sue the city, the county, or a school district?

Cities, counties, districts: chapter 4.96 RCW

A claim against a local entity is presented to an agent the governing body has appointed to receive claims. RCW 4.96.020(2) requires that agent's identity and business address to be a public record and to be recorded with the auditor of the county where the entity sits, which is how you find out where to send it. A claim is presented when the form is delivered in person or received by that agent by regular, registered, or certified mail with return receipt requested.

The state and its agencies: chapter 4.92 RCW

A claim against the state, a state officer, or a state employee goes to the Office of Risk Management. RCW 4.92.100(1) allows delivery in person, by regular, registered, or certified mail with return receipt requested, by fax, or as an email attachment, and it sets out what an electronic signature has to carry with it. This is the route for the Department of Transportation, the Department of Corrections, the State Patrol, the state universities, and the rest of state government.

Getting the wrong statute is a live risk, because the entity that hurt you is not always the one whose name is on the vehicle or the building. A road can be city, county, or state within a few blocks. A transit bus belongs to a transit authority, not to the city. A public hospital may be a district, and a private hospital is neither.

What presenting a claim actually requires

For claims presented after July 26, 2009, claims go on the standard tort claim form maintained by the Office of Risk Management in the Department of Enterprise Services, which the statute requires to be posted on that agency's website. A local entity must make the standard form available and may also offer its own, and presenting either one satisfies the chapter.

RCW 4.96.020(3)(a) and RCW 4.92.100(1)(a) set the same minimum contents: your name, date of birth, and contact information; a description of the conduct and the circumstances that brought about the injury; a description of the injury or damage; the time and place it happened; the names and contact information of everyone involved, if known; the amount of damages claimed; and your actual residence both when the claim arose and when you present it.

Signature matters more than people expect. The form must be signed by the claimant verifying the claim, or by an attorney-in-fact under a written power of attorney, or by an attorney admitted to practice in Washington on the claimant's behalf, or by a court-approved guardian or guardian ad litem. A claim signed by the wrong person is a defect worth arguing about, and it is entirely avoidable.

One detail that relieves a common worry: the amount of damages you write on the form is not admissible at trial. It is required, and it is not a cap or an admission.

The sixty days, the tolling, and the five court days

After the claim is presented you have to wait. RCW 4.96.020(4) bars commencing the action against a local entity "until sixty calendar days have elapsed" after the claim was first presented, and RCW 4.92.110 says the same for the state.

Both sections then protect the deadline rather than punishing you for the wait. The applicable limitation period is tolled during the sixty days, so the waiting period does not eat three months of your three years. And for purposes of the limitation period, an action commenced within five court days after the sixty calendar days have elapsed is deemed to have been presented on the first day after that period ended, which is a small grace built in for the filing itself.

In practice that means the arithmetic has to be done on paper, not in your head. The date the agent received the claim is the date everything else is counted from, and the sixty days and the tolled stretch of the limitation period both have to be calculated before a complaint is filed.

Substantial compliance, and what it does not forgive

Both chapters are generous about how a claim is written. RCW 4.96.020(5) says that as to content and all procedural requirements, the section "must be liberally construed so that substantial compliance will be deemed satisfactory," and RCW 4.92.100(3) says the same for state claims. Imperfect wording and a missing detail are usually survivable.

What liberal construction does not supply is a claim that was never presented, or one presented after the limitation period ran. The rule is forgiving about the contents of the document and unforgiving about its existence and its timing.

The statute also disciplines the government. RCW 4.96.020(2) says that a local entity's own failure to comply with the section "precludes that local governmental entity from raising a defense under this chapter," and RCW 4.96.020(3)(d) waives the related defense when the entity's own form fails to ask for required information or lists the wrong agent. An entity's form may not demand your Social Security number, and while it may ask for extra information, it cannot deny the claim because you left the extra blank.

Section 1983 claims do not go through this

If the claim is a federal civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, the state claim filing statute does not apply to it. In Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (1988), the Supreme Court held Wisconsin's notice-of-claim statute preempted as inconsistent with federal law when applied to section 1983 actions brought in state court.

The practical consequence is that a single incident can carry two claims on two tracks. An arrest that broke your wrist might support a state law negligence or assault claim, which needs a presented claim and a sixty-day wait, alongside a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim under section 1983, which does not. Dropping the state claim filing step because the federal claim does not need it is a way to lose half a case.

Picking which claims to bring, and in which court, is its own decision with consequences for immunity, fees, and the jury pool. The companion article on section 1983 claims in Washington covers that side of it.

The three years underneath all of it

The claim filing statute is a gate, not a limitation period. The limitation period is still three years for a personal injury claim, under RCW 4.16.080(2), and RCW 4.96.020(2) requires the claim to be presented to the agent "within the applicable period of limitations within which an action must be commenced."

Read together that produces a deadline earlier than three years in every practical sense. A claim presented on the last day of the third year is timely as a claim, but the sixty-day wait means the lawsuit cannot be filed on time without relying on the tolling provision to carry it. That provision exists and it works. Relying on it with no margin is still a bad plan.

Where a child is hurt, RCW 4.16.190 excludes the time the claimant was under eighteen from the limitation period, which also affects the claim presentment window because that window is defined by the limitation period. One exception matters here, because a public hospital district is both a local governmental entity under this chapter and a health care provider: RCW 4.16.350 imputes a custodial parent's knowledge to a claimant under eighteen and says so notwithstanding RCW 4.16.190, so a child's claim for medical negligence does not get that tolling. That interaction is worth getting advice on rather than assuming either way.

Where this goes wrong

The claim goes to the receptionist, or to the risk pool, or to the insurer, instead of to the agent recorded with the county auditor. Delivery to the right person is part of what presentment means.

The wrong entity gets the claim. A claim presented to a city for a crash on a state highway, or to a county for an injury on transit property, is not a claim against the entity that is liable.

Nobody notes the date of receipt. Return receipt requested exists for exactly this reason, and the sixty days cannot be counted without it.

The complaint is filed on day forty. Early filing is a dismissal risk, and the cure is not always a refiling, because by then the limitation period may have moved.

Public records that would prove notice are never requested. A prior complaint about the same intersection, the same stair, or the same playground is often the difference between an accident and a claim, and the Public Records Act is the way to get it.

What a lawyer does here

The early work is identifying the correct entity and the correct statute, finding the recorded agent, presenting a claim that is complete and properly signed, calendaring the sixty days and the limitation period together, and pulling the agency's own records about the condition or the employee before anybody is on notice to be careful with them. Someone also has to read the immunity doctrines honestly, because discretionary acts, public duty, and the particulars of road design each carry real defenses that are better understood before a claim than after.

I handle claims against cities, counties, school districts, and state agencies from my office in downtown Spokane, in Washington superior courts and in the Eastern and Western Districts of Washington, along with Public Records Act and Open Public Meetings Act disputes. I am admitted in Washington, WSBA #55307, and Oregon, OSB #242384.

If a government entity injured you or someone in your family, I offer a free consultation by appointment at my Spokane office, 601 W. 1st Ave., Suite 1400. Bring the date it happened, any incident or report number you were given, and the name of the agency as it appeared on the vehicle, the uniform, or the sign.

Disclaimer

This article is general information about Washington law, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Law changes, and how it applies depends on facts specific to your situation. If you have a question about your own circumstances, speak with a lawyer.