Bill would presume drivers negligent in many collisions with pedestrians and cyclists; supporters and insurers debate effects

House Bill 15‑18 would create a rebuttable presumption that operators of certain vehicles negligently caused collisions with pedestrians, bicyclists or minor motor vehicles, John Brzezinski, staff to the committee, told the Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee on Feb. 5.

Brzezinski summarized the bill’s effect on tort law: the bill would presume that a major motor vehicle operator involved in a qualifying collision negligently caused the collision, and it would create parallel presumptions for minor motor vehicles and bicycles in collisions with pedestrians. The bill defines a major motor vehicle as one that weighs 200 pounds or more or is capable of motorized speeds in excess of 28 miles per hour; anything under both thresholds is a minor motor vehicle. A defendant may rebut the presumption by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that they were not negligent or that their negligence did not cause the collision; plaintiffs still must prove damages and causation.

Sponsor Rep. Reed (sponsor name given in testimony as Representative Reid) told the panel the bill responds to a rise in pedestrian deaths and serious injuries and the state’s Vision Zero goal. She said the measure is intended to give “pedestrians and cyclists a tool to … ensure that if they are injured, they are able to recover the cost of going to the hospital, the cost of missing work, the cost of injuries and replacement of equipment.”

Supporters’ arguments: Multiple witnesses described rising fatalities and the burdens facing injured pedestrians and cyclists. John Lloyd, who testified he was struck while loading a truck in 2010 and endured a five‑year legal fight, said victims often cannot meet the current evidentiary burden after severe injury and supported the presumption as correcting that imbalance. Bob Anderton, who helped draft the bill and represents Washington Bike Law, said presumed liability is used in other countries and “will make our streets safer and our justice system fairer.” Anne Marie Dooley, an ER physician, described trauma costs and daily experience treating people hit by cars and testified in favor.

Opponents’ concerns: Representatives of the insurance and trucking industries, and defense attorneys, warned of legal and economic consequences. Jeff Devier of the Washington Trucking Associations testified in opposition, saying his industry already faces higher insurance requirements and that the bill “changes the presumption before we even start talking about who is at fault.” Defense attorneys and civil‑litigation groups warned the bill would shift the civil burden of proof and combined with an attorney‑fee provision and potential statutory and punitive damages could create uninsurable risks and encourage fee‑driven litigation. Andrew Williams, an attorney who defends drivers in such suits, said the fee‑shifting component could make the statute “a money making proposition for the plaintiff’s bar.” Mike Rhodes of the Washington Defense Trial Lawyers said the change would depart from the general American rule that plaintiffs bear the burden of proof and create uncertain liabilities for insureds.

Legislative questions and data requests: Lawmakers asked about how the presumption would apply when pedestrians or cyclists bear some responsibility and about effects on insurance costs. Representative Burnett and others asked staff to provide statewide breakdowns of who causes collisions; Representative Walsh and Rep. Reed noted uncertainty about insurance cost effects and said they would pursue analysis from the Office of the Insurance Commissioner. Panelists and legislators asked for empirical crash data and insurance‑market studies to be submitted in writing to the committee.

Bill mechanics and remedies: Brzezinski said the bill allows recovery of actual economic and noneconomic damages, statutory damages of $1,500 in limited contexts, and in limited circumstances reasonable attorney’s fees, expert costs and punitive damages. The presumption is rebuttable and the trier of fact would apportion liability if the plaintiff is found contributorily negligent.

Ending note: The hearing drew extensive public testimony both for and against HB 15‑18. Supporters argued the measure protects vulnerable road users amid rising fatalities; opponents warned of unintended legal and insurance market consequences and asked for additional information and fiscal/actuarial analysis before policy decisions are made.