This bill adds a new section to chapter 4.24 RCW that creates rebuttable presumptions of negligent causation in civil tort actions arising from certain vehicle collisions. Under the new section, an operator of a major motor vehicle involved in a collision with a pedestrian, bicycle, or minor motor vehicle is presumed to have negligently caused the collision, and an operator of a minor motor vehicle or a bicycle involved in a collision with a pedestrian is presumed to have negligently caused the collision. If the operator is unknown, the legal owner is presumed to have been the operator but may rebut that presumption. The presumptions are rebuttable by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence; plaintiffs must prove damages and that any defendant negligence was the actual and proximate cause of damages by a preponderance of the evidence. The section creates new substantive and procedural rules for recovery: a prevailing plaintiff may recover actual economic and noneconomic damages plus a statutory $1,500; if a defendant disputes a presumption under the defendant-breach provision but the factfinder finds the defendant did breach that duty, the prevailing plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and actual costs (including expert fees) related to the disputed presumption. Punitive damages may be recovered by a prevailing plaintiff if the defendant has previously been found civilly or criminally liable for collisions involving a total of three or more pedestrians, bicyclists, or minor motor vehicle operators. The section is stated to be cumulative and nonexclusive and does not affect other civil remedies or criminal law. The bill provides definitions for bicycle, major motor vehicle, minor motor vehicle, owner, pedestrian, and vehicle or bicycle operator (including remote control and employer/principal responsibility) and identifies plaintiffs and defendants in such tort actions, vehicle and bicycle operators, legal owners, employers/principals, and courts as affected parties. Procedural burdens specified include rebuttal and plaintiff proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The provided text does not state an effective date or applicability, does not give the exact numeric subsection added within chapter 4.24 RCW, and does not specify how prior civil or criminal findings are to be proved for the punitive damages threshold; the referenced cross‑definitions and contributory fault rules are not reproduced in the provided text.

If enacted, the bill would make it much easier for people hit while walking, biking, or in small vehicles to win civil claims by creating a default assumption that the driver or rider caused the crash. Plaintiffs would still need to show their damages and causation, but defendants would have to overcome the presumption by proving they were not negligent. Successful plaintiffs could recover their actual losses plus a $1,500 statutory award, and defendants who contest the presumption and are found to have breached their duty could face the claimant’s attorney and expert fees; owners can also be treated as the driver when the operator is unknown unless they rebut that presumption. The groups most affected are drivers and riders of major and minor motor vehicles and bicycles, vehicle owners, and employers whose employees operate vehicles; they face higher risk of liability, potentially greater legal costs, and increased exposure to damage awards, including punitive damages if there are prior liability findings. Courts and juries would see a shift in how fault is allocated, though contributory fault rules from existing law still apply. Important details are missing, including when the rule would take effect and how prior findings for punitive damages must be proved, so exact timing and some proof issues remain unclear.