Price v. Kitsap Transit

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc · 1994 · Torts

886 P.2d 556 (Wash. 1994)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsComparative faultNegligenceDamagesSettlementsRCW 4.22.070RCW 4.22.015entity

Facts

Carl Price was injured when a Kitsap Transit bus abruptly stopped after 4-year-old Bradley Lanchester, while approaching the front of the bus with his father, reached into the driver area and activated an emergency stop switch. Price claimed the sudden stop aggravated earlier whiplash injuries and contributed to his early retirement. Before trial, the Prices settled with Bradley and his father for $3,000 at a court-approved reasonableness hearing. At trial, the court found total damages of $259,535 and assigned most of the fault to Bradley, despite his being 4 years old.

Issue

Whether RCW 4.22.070(1) permits a trier of fact to apportion fault to a 4-year-old child, and whether the trial court's negligence and damages findings against Kitsap Transit were supported by substantial evidence. The court also considered whether the trial court was bound by the earlier reasonableness hearing to treat the settling defendants as responsible for no more than the $3,000 settlement amount.

Rule

For purposes of RCW 4.22.070(1), an 'entity' is a juridical being capable of fault. Because fault under RCW 4.22.015 means negligent or reckless acts or omissions, and children under age 6 are conclusively incapable of negligence, such children are incapable of fault and cannot have fault apportioned to them under the statute. A reasonableness hearing under RCW 4.22.060 determines only whether a settlement amount is reasonable, not the settling party's precise share of fault or damages.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Spokane, a shopper sued a grocery store after slipping when 5-year-old Owen Mercer darted down an aisle and knocked over a display, spilling liquid on the floor moments before the fall. At trial, the store asked the court to assign part of the fault to Owen under Washington's comparative fault statute.

How should the court rule on the store's request to apportion fault to Owen?

Explanation. Under the majority rule, fault under RCW 4.22.070(1) may be apportioned only to juridical beings capable of fault. Because fault is defined in terms of negligent or reckless acts or omissions, and children under 6 are conclusively incapable of negligence, they are incapable of fault for apportionment purposes. Physical causation alone does not make a 5-year-old an apportionable entity.