A breach of a duty imposed by statute, ordinance, or administrative rule shall not be considered negligence per se, but may be considered by the trier of fact as evidence of negligence; however, any breach of duty as provided by statute, ordinance, or administrative rule relating to electrical fire safety, the use of smoke alarms, sterilization of needles and instruments used in tattooing or electrology as required under RCW 70.54.350, or driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, shall be considered negligence per se.

[2001 c 194 § 5; 1986 c 305 § 901.]

Notes:

RCW 5.40.050

Breach of duty — Evidence of negligence — Negligence per se. (Effective July 1, 2010.)

A breach of a duty imposed by statute, ordinance, or administrative rule shall not be considered negligence per se, but may be considered by the trier of fact as evidence of negligence; however, any breach of duty as provided by statute, ordinance, or administrative rule relating to: (1) Electrical fire safety, (2) the use of smoke alarms, (3) sterilization of needles and instruments used by persons engaged in the practice of body art, body piercing, tattooing, or electrology, or other precaution against the spread of disease, as required under RCW 70.54.350, or (4) driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, shall be considered negligence per se.

[2009 c 412 § 20; 2001 c 194 § 5; 1986 c 305 § 901.]

Notes: