Weekly Roundup for the week of August 31, 2026
Washington Supreme Court
Vicarious Liability and Negligent Retention – A plaintiff may plead both vicarious liability against an employer based on an employee’s negligence within the scope of employment, and negligent retention. Rule CR8(e)(2) expressly allows pleading alternative and inconsistent theories for recovery based on the same or different facts. And in any event, vicarious liability and negligent retention are not inconsistent claims, they are analytically distinct. An employer does not render a negligent retention claim superfluous by conceding that the employee was acting within the scope of employment. But a plaintiff can only recover once for the harm suffered. Double damages are not allowed. Earl v. City of Tacoma, No. 104495-0 (Sep. 3, 2026)
Division I
Firearms Restoration – The 2023 firearm restoration amendments are not retroactive. Individuals who met the prior requirements before the amendments, remain eligible, meaning they are exempt from new conditions like first paying full restitution even if they petitioned after the amendments took effect. If they are eligible, the court must grant the petition. McCaulley v. State of WA, No. 88984-2-I (Aug. 31, 2026, Unpublished)
Division III
Involuntary Treatment Act – The plain meaning of “administration,” as the term is used in RCW 71.05.217(1)(j)(iv), is unambiguous and permits the trial court to authorize a person undergo involuntary blood draws if the blood draws are a medically necessary component of giving treatment. In the matter of the Detention of: N.P., No. 40994-5-III (Mot. to Pub. Granted Sep. 3, 2026)
Other Jurisdictions
Fifth Amendment Right Not to Testify – A court commits constitutional error by “allowing a defendant to present clearly relevant evidence of his tattoos only at the price of forgoing his Fifth Amendment right not to testify.” Here, the defendant had tattoos covering the back of his hands. Surveillance footage, although blurry, did not appear to show tattoos on the left hand of the robber who lost his glove. The defendant argued the display of his hands should not make him subject to cross-examination. The Nineth Circuit agreed. US v. Valencia, No. 24-3820 (9th Cir. Sep. 3, 2026)