Until 1973 Washington followed a rule of contributory negligence under which is an injury victim was partially at fault, even partially, this was a complete defense to the injury claim. This lead to many harsh results and exceptions to the rule.
A comparative negligence statute went into effect in 1974 that eliminated the contributory negligence rule of a complete bar to recovery and replaced it with a rule that the plaintiff’s claim is lowered by the proportion of the plaintiff’s fault.
In 1981 the comparative fault rule was expanded from “negligence” to encompass “fault”, a broader concept .
The injured plaintiff’s negligence does not reduce the award if the defendant’s acts were intentional. However, among multiple defendants damages must be segregated between damages caused by intentional acts and damages caused for non-intentional acts.
As juries are inclined to place most blame on those committing intentional acts and insurance policies virtually always exclude intentional acts an injured plaintiff’s claim may be largely unrecoverable.
 See, for example, Stokes v. Johnstone, 47 Wn.2d 323, 287 P. (2d) 472 (1955)(The last clear chance doctrine not applied when the defendant blinded by plaintiff’s headlights).
 RCW 4.22.101(repealed), 4.22.010 (repealed).
 RCW 4.22.050.
 Honegger v. Yoke’s Washington Foods, Inc., 83 Wn.App. 293, 921 P.2d 1080(1996); Welch v. Southland Corp., 134 Wn.2d 629 (1998).
 Tegman v. Accident & Medical Investigations, Inc., 150 Wn.2d 102 (2003).