Hanson v. Carmona

• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Decided: March 23, 2023
• Docket: 99823-0
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION (not the court’s final written decision)

The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the written opinions that are originally filed by the court. A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits (for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of the court. The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports. For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential (unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there. For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. FILE THIS OPINION WAS FILED FOR RECORD AT 8 A.M. ON MARCH 23, 2023 IN CLERK’S OFFICE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON MARCH 23, 2023 ERIN L. LENNON SUPREME COURT CLERK

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

KYLIE HANSON, individually, ) ) Petitioner, ) No. 99823-0 v. ) ) En Banc MIRIAM GONZALEZ CARMONA and ) JOHN DOE CARMONA, husband and wife, ) individually, and the marital community Filed: March 23, 2023 ) comprised thereof, ) Respondents, ) ) SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON OFFICE ) OF AGING AND LONG TERM CARE ) ADVISORY COUNCIL, a Washington non- ) profit corporation, ) ) Defendant. ) )

WHITENER, J.— This case concerns whether RCW 4.96.020(4), a presuit

claims notice statute under which one must provide local governmental entities with

notice of an alleged claim 60 days before filing the claim, applies when a plaintiff

sues a governmental employee acting in the scope of her employment, in her

individual capacity. Also at issue is whether said statute violates separation of

powers because it conflicts with CR 3(a). For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

The present case arises from a car accident in which Miriam Gonzalez

Carmona 1 ran a red light and hit Kylie Hanson’s car. At the time, Carmona was

driving home from an out of town work training, driving a car owned by her

employer, Southeast Washington Office of Aging and Long Term Care (SEW

ALTC). Hanson filed a complaint against Carmona individually and the SEW ALTC

Advisory Council (Advisory Council), under a theory of vicarious liability alleging

Carmona was acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the accident.

The Advisory Council and Carmona moved for summary judgment because

Hanson did not comply with RCW 4.96.020(4)’s presuit notice requirement to sue a

government entity or its employees for tortious conduct and the statute of limitations

had run. Hanson then amended her complaint to remove all references to the

Advisory Council and the allegations that Carmona was acting in the scope of

employment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Advisory

Council, but it allowed the case to proceed forward against Carmona in her

individual capacity. The Court of Appeals reversed.

We affirm the Court of Appeals on different grounds. We hold that RCW

4.96.020(4) applies when an employee is acting within the scope of employment but

is sued in their individual capacity. The plain language of the statute encompasses

1 Although she has two last names we refer to Miriam Gonzalez Carmona as “Carmona” to be consistent with her briefing. 2 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

acts within the scope of employment and the government entity, not the employee,

is bound by any judgment, even if not technically sued. Accordingly, the legislature

can require presuit notices for employee acts committed within the scope of

employment.

In addition, we hold that this statute does not violate separation of powers

because, although RCW 4.96.020(4) and CR 3(a) conflict, the legislature has the

power to decide conditions precedent to suing the State under article II, section 26

of the Washington Constitution. We remand to the trial court to enter summary

judgment in favor of Carmona.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 6, 2016, Hanson and Carmona were involved in a car accident.

Carmona ran a red light and collided with Hanson’s vehicle, injuring Hanson. At the

time of the accident, Carmona was on her way home from attending a training

program in Spokane and was driving a vehicle owned by her employer SEW ALTC.

“SEW ALTC is an Area Agency on Aging, established pursuant to RCW 74.38 to

administer grants for programs for older individuals and adults with disabilities

within Asotin, Benton, Columbia, Franklin, Garfield, Kittitas, Walla Walla and

Yakima Counties.” Clerk’s Papers at 17-18.

On August 26, 2019, Hanson’s complaint was filed against Carmona

individually and together with her husband, for damages as a result of Carmona’s

3 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

negligence, and against the Advisory Council for liability as Carmona’s employer.

In the complaint, Hanson alleged that Carmona was acting within the scope of her

employment at the time of the accident.

On October 7, Carmona and the Advisory Council moved for summary

judgment. In the motion, Carmona and the Advisory Council alleged that Hanson

did not serve SEW ALTC, a governmental entity, with the statutorily required notice

of claim under RCW 4.96.020. Under RCW 4.96.020(4),

[n]o action subject to the claim filing requirements of this section shall be commenced against any local governmental entity, or against any local governmental entity’s officers, employees, or volunteers, acting in such capacity, for damages arising out of tortious conduct until sixty calendar days have elapsed after the claim has first been presented to the agent of the governing body thereof.

Accordingly, Carmona and the Advisory Council argued that because Hanson did

not comply with RCW 4.96.020, and because the statute of limitations had run, they

were entitled to dismissal with prejudice.

On October 28, 2019, Hanson amended the complaint to remove the Advisory

Council as a named defendant and to remove all allegations that Carmona was acting

within the scope of her employment. This left Carmona and her husband as the only

defendants. Hanson also filed a response to the motion for summary judgment,

alleging that Carmona is personally liable regardless of her employer.

On the motion for summary judgment, the trial court dismissed the Advisory

Council from the case but ruled that the case could proceed against Carmona in her 4 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

individual capacity. The trial court certified the partial summary judgment order for

discretionary review in the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals reversed. Hanson v. Carmona, 16 Wn. App. 2d 834,

837, 491 P.3d 978 (2021).2 The court held that the presuit notice requirement does

apply to a case where the plaintiff sues the employee without suing the employer.

Id. at 842-43. Further, relying on the “fractured opinion” in McDevitt v. Harborview

Medical Center, 179 Wn.2d 59, 316 P.3d 469 (2013), the Court of Appeals held that

RCW 4.96.020(4) is constitutional under separation of powers, but it “welcome[d]”

this court to revisit the issue. Hanson, 16 Wn. App. 2d at 852.

Hanson appealed the issues of whether RCW 4.96.020(4) violates separation

of powers as applied and whether the legislature can extend sovereign immunity to

a “private party.” Pet. for Rev. at 2-3. This court granted review.

There are two amicus briefs in this case, both in support of Carmona: one by

the State of Washington through the Attorney General’s Office (hereinafter the State

AGO) and the other by Washington Cities Insurance Authority, Washington

Counties Risk Pool, Enduris, Association of Washington Cities, and Washington

State Transit Insurance Pool (hereinafter WCIA et al.).

2 This case was originally unpublished, but the Court of Appeals granted a motion to publish. 5 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

ANALYSIS

I. Standard of Review

When reviewing a summary judgment order, “[w]e engage in the same inquiry

as the superior court.” Lakehaven Water & Sewer Dist. v. City of Federal Way, 195

Wn.2d 742, 752, 466 P.3d 213 (2020).

We review constitutional issues and issues of statutory interpretation de novo.

State v. Gresham, 173 Wn.2d 405, 419, 269 P.3d 207 (2012); Putman v. Wenatchee

Valley Med. Ctr., PS, 166 Wn.2d 974, 978, 216 P.3d 374 (2009).

II. Our legislature has extended sovereign immunity protections to government employees acting within the scope of employment

Under article II, section 26 of the Washington Constitution, “[t]he legislature

shall direct by law, in what manner, and in what courts, suits may be brought against

the state.”

“The doctrine of governmental immunity springs from the archaic concept

that ‘The King Can Do No Wrong’” and has been the subject of much criticism.

Kelso v. City of Tacoma, 63 Wn.2d 913, 914, 390 P.2d 2 (1964). Nonetheless, the

state of Washington enjoyed this immunity for many decades. This sovereign

immunity applied not only to actions by the State but also “municipal corporations

when acting in a governmental capacity.” Hagerman v. City of Seattle, 189 Wash.

694, 697, 66 P.2d 1152 (1937). A core reason for this municipal immunity was “[t]he

6 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

state is sovereign, and the municipality is its governmental agency; since the state

may not be sued without its consent, therefore its agent cannot be.” Id.

In 1961, the legislature waived the State’s sovereign immunity “for damages

arising out of its tortious conduct.” LAWS OF 1961, ch. 136, § 1; see also LAWS OF

1963, ch. 159, § 2. In 1963, the legislature also added the requirement that prior to

filing suit against the State for damages from tortious conduct, the aggrieved party

must comply with presuit claim notice procedures. LAWS OF 1963, ch. 159, §§ 3-4.

The specifics of said procedures have been amended multiple times. These laws are

codified in chapter 4.92 RCW.

In 1964, this court held that because the legislature had waived the State’s

sovereign immunity, without specifically preserving the immunity of municipalities,

the city of Tacoma was liable for any tortious conduct at the time of the automobile

collision at issue. Kelso, 63 Wn.2d at 918-19. Shortly thereafter, in 1967, the

legislature codified the waiver of sovereign immunity for municipalities and created

municipal claim notice procedures akin to those for the State. LAWS OF 1967, ch.

164, §§ 1, 4. These laws are codified in chapter 4.96 RCW and form the basis of the

present case.

Decades later, in Hardesty v. Stenchever, 82 Wn. App. 253, 255, 917 P.2d 577

(1996), the Court of Appeals examined RCW 4.92.100 and 4.92.210, which set out

the presuit claim procedures for filing a tort claim against the State. Hardesty filed a

7 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

medical negligence suit against her doctor (Stenchever), the University of

Washington Medical Center (UWMC) and the State, but she did not comply with

the requirements under RCW 4.92.100. Id. at 255. The defendants moved for

summary judgment, and the trial court dismissed the action as to the State and

UWMC but allowed claims against the doctor to move forward. Id. at 256. The trial

court “indicated it was allowing the case against Stenchever to proceed because he

was acting in his individual capacity when he made decisions about Hardesty’s

medical care.” Id. at 260. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that

Stenchever’s actions were within the scope of his employment as a state employee.

Id. at 260-61. In addition, because the actions were in the scope of his employment,

he could ask the State to defend him under RCW 4.92.060. Id. at 260. Under RCW

4.92.070, the attorney general must grant the request if the acts were purported to be

in good faith within the scope of the employee’s duties. Id. And under RCW

4.92.075, if a judgment were entered against the employee, the judgment creditor

can seek satisfaction only from the State and there is no lien on the employee’s

property. Id. “The suit, therefore, exposes state funds to liability, making this

precisely the type of case to which RCW 4.92 applies.” Id. at 261. Accordingly, the

case against the physician should have been dismissed on the same grounds it was

dismissed against the State and UWMC. Id.

8 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

In 2003, the Court of Appeals extended this principle to chapter 4.96 RCW in

Woods v. Bailet, 116 Wn. App. 658, 67 P.3d 511 (2003). In that case, Woods sued

her doctors, but the trial court dismissed the lawsuit because Woods did not file the

required claim notice. Id. at 662. On appeal, Woods claimed she was suing her

doctors in their individual capacities, so RCW 4.96.010 does not apply. Id. at 665.

The Court of Appeals affirmed, citing Hardesty, concluding,

[the government entity] itself is protected by the claim-filing statute, and [its] funds are exposed to liability by lawsuits against its doctors for acts committed within the scope of their employment. Accordingly, in this case, as in Hardesty, the claim-filing statute applies to a lawsuit against [the entity]’s doctors to the same extent that it would apply to a lawsuit against [the entity]. Id. at 666-67.

In Bosteder v. City of Renton, 155 Wn.2d 18, 23, 117 P.3d 316 (2005)

(plurality opinion), this court examined former RCW 4.96.020 (2001). At that time,

former RCW 4.96.020(4), setting out the claim notice procedures, read, “No action

shall be commenced against any local governmental entity for damages arising out

of tortious conduct until sixty days have elapsed after the claim has first been

presented to and filed with the governing body thereof.” See also Bosteder, 155

Wn.2d at 57 n.22. Five justices held that this claim notice statute did not apply to

individuals as the legislature did not explicitly state that it did, only that it applied to

entities. See id. at 58 (Sanders, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part) (“the claim

filing statute applies only to local governmental entities, not to individuals”), 59

9 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

(Ireland, J. Pro Tem., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“I agree with the

majority except as it holds that the claim filing statute applies to individuals. The

statute does not state so, and I do not think we should second-guess the wisdom of

the legislature in failing to provide this protection for individuals.”).

In response, the legislature amended former RCW 4.96.020(4) in 2006 to read,

“No action shall be commenced against any local governmental entity, or against

any local governmental entity’s officers, employees, or volunteers, acting in such

capacity, for damages arising out of tortious conduct until sixty days have elapsed

after the claim has first been presented to and filed with the governing body thereof.”

LAWS OF 2006, ch. 82, § 4 (underlining denoting added language). Similar language

to include officers, employees, and volunteers was added to the related statutes

concerning State claim procedures. See generally id. (adding similar language to

RCW 4.92.100, .110). In State v. Clark, 178 Wn.2d 19, 24, 308 P.3d 590 (2013),

this court recognized that Bosteder was superseded by statute. At issue in the present

case is whether the statute requiring presuit notice to the government applies to

employees acting within the scope of employment but being sued in their individual

capacity. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that it does.

10 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

III. RCW 4.96.020(4) requires that plaintiffs give notice to the government agency when suing its employee acting within the scope of their employment, even when the employee is sued in their individual capacity

Hanson contends that “[a] case against an employee in their individual

capacity is not a case against the sovereign state” and therefore the presuit notice

requirement does not apply. Pet’r’s Suppl. Br. at 4. In contrast, Carmona contends

that the presuit notice requirement applies because she was acting in the scope of her

employment at the time of the accident and because the government will be bound

by any judgment against her. Resp’ts’ Suppl. Br. at 4. We agree with Carmona. The

plain text of RCW 4.96.020(4), coupled with the settled common law of respondeat

superior and sovereign immunity under our state constitution and our specific

indemnity statute, leads to the conclusion that the presuit notice requirement applies

to employees acting within the scope of employment, even when sued individually.

a. The plain text of the statute supports that “capacity” includes all acts within the scope of employment

When interpreting a statute, “[t]he court’s fundamental objective is to

ascertain and carry out the Legislature’s intent, and if the statute’s meaning is plain

on its face, then the court must give effect to that plain meaning as an expression of

legislative intent.” Dep’t of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 9-

10, 43 P.3d 4 (2002). We discern plain meaning “from all that the Legislature has

11 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

said in the statute and related statutes which disclose legislative intent about the

provision in question.” Id. at 11.

RCW 4.96.020(1) and (4) read,

(1) The provisions of this section apply to claims for damages against all local governmental entities and their officers, employees, or volunteers, acting in such capacity. …. (4) No action subject to the claim filing requirements of this section shall be commenced against any local governmental entity, or against any local governmental entity’s officers, employees, or volunteers, acting in such capacity, for damages arising out of tortious conduct until sixty calendar days have elapsed after the claim has first been presented to the agent of the governing body thereof. . . .

(Emphasis added.) The key phrase in both subsections (1) and (4) is “employees …

acting in such capacity.” The plain language of the statute thus requires presuit

notice for a governmental employee’s tortious conduct when that employee is

“acting in such capacity.”

“To discern the plain meaning of undefined statutory language, we give words

their usual and ordinary meaning and interpret them in the context of the statute in

which they appear.” Newton v. State, 192 Wn. App. 931, 936-37, 369 P.3d 511

(2016) (citing AllianceOne Receivables Mgmt., Inc. v. Lewis, 180 Wn.2d 389, 395-

96, 325 P.3d 904 (2014)). The word “capacity” is not defined in the statute, so we

may look to dictionary definitions. See Nissen v. Pierce County, 183 Wn.2d 863,

881, 357 P.3d 45 (2015). Because capacity is a familiar legal concept, we can also

look to a legal dictionary. Cashmere Valley Bank v. Dep’t of Revenue, 181 Wn.2d 12 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

622, 634, 334 P.3d 1100 (2014) (using Black’s Law Dictionary to define the term

“secured,” giving it its legal meaning as it is a “familiar legal term”).

“Capacity” is defined as

2 : legal qualification, competency, power, or fitness 3 a : ABILITY, CALIBER, STATURE b : mental power, capability, and acumen, blended to enable one to grasp ideas, to analyze and judge, and to cope with problems . . . c : blended power, strength, and ability… d : capability or faculty for executing, considering, appreciating, or experiencing . . . 4 a . . . : a situation enabling or making capable . . . b : a position, character, or role either duly assigned or assumed without sanction . . . .

WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 330 (2002). Similarly, Black’s

Law Dictionary defines “capacity” as “[t]he role in which one performs an act; esp.,

someone’s job, position, or duty.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 257 (11th ed. 2019).

Under either definition it follows that “capacity” includes fulfilling a role an

employee has been assigned by that governmental agency. This would include acts

within the scope of employment as the act is being performed because of someone’s

job. Therefore, under the plain language of the statute, the presuit notice requirement

applies to all acts taken by government employees acting within the scope of

employment, even when the governmental agency is not sued.

b. Washington courts have long held that government entities can act only through their employees and that acts within the scope of employment are acts of the government entity

In addition to the plain language of the statute, this court has long held that

the acts of an employee within the scope of employment are the acts of the

13 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

government entity itself. In Kelso, 63 Wn.2d at 914, this court concluded that a

police officer who negligently injured a motorist while driving on duty was acting

on behalf of the city. “Tacoma was liable for its tortious conduct, if any, at the time

of the automobile collision in which the plaintiff was injured.” Id. at 919 (emphasis

added). The court equated the actions of the police officer and the actions of the

local government for which he worked. Id. at 917-18. Kelso made no distinction

between a lawsuit brought against the police officer in his individual capacity and a

lawsuit brought against a police officer in his official capacity. Instead, we held that

a police officer’s tortious conduct, while acting in the scope of employment, is the

equivalent of the tortious conduct of the city in which he was employed. The holding

in Kelso is consistent with long-standing vicarious liability principles under common

law.

In Houser v. City of Redmond, 91 Wn.2d 36, 586 P.2d 482 (1978), we held

that a discharged police officer could not sue the city for tortious interference with

his employment contract. The officer was discharged for unlawfully tape-recording

coworkers making derogatory comments about the chief of police and other officers.

Id. at 37. In holding that the city could not, as a matter of law, tortiously interfere

with its own contract, the court stated,

A municipal corporation, like any corporation, can act only through its agents, and when its agents act within the scope of their employment their actions are the actions of the city itself. Thus, if Redmond’s

14 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

employees were acting within the scope of their employment, their actions were Redmond’s, and no interference claim will lie.

If, on the other hand, the actions of the employees were not within the scope of employment, then they are third parties potentially liable in their individual capacities. However, if these actions were outside the scope of employment, their actions are not chargeable to Redmond and Redmond cannot be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Id. at 40 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). Thus, acting within one’s scope of

employment is the same as the governmental agency acting. In this case, if Carmona

was negligent in driving a government vehicle, and she was driving within the scope

of her employment (which is undisputed), then she was acting in her capacity as a

government employee and her negligence is the negligence of her governmental

employer.

In a more recent Public Records Act (PRA), ch. 42.56 RCW, case, Nissen v.

Pierce County, 183 Wn.2d 863, 869, 357 P.3d 45 (2015), the court considered

whether text messages sent and received by a public employee “in the employee’s

official capacity” are public records of the employer under the PRA, even if the

employee uses a private cell phone. Nissen, a sheriff’s detective, sent two PRA

requests to Pierce County seeking records relating to former prosecutor Mark

Lindquist. She sought all telephone records, including text messages, for any cell

phone he used, including his private cell phone, during a particular period. Id.

This court said,

15 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

[E]very agency the PRA identifies is a political body arising under law (e.g., a county). But those bodies lack an innate ability to prepare, own, use, or retain any record. They instead act exclusively through their employees and other agents, and when an employee acts within the scope of his or her employment, the employee’s actions are tantamount to “the actions of the [body] itself.”

Id. at 876 (emphasis added) (quoting Houser, 91 Wn.2d at 40). This court “[i]ntegra[ted] this basic common law concept” into the PRA to

hold that a record that an agency employee “prepares, owns, uses, or retains in the

scope of employment is necessarily a record ‘prepared, owned, used, or retained by

[a] state or local agency.’” Id. at 876. The court equated the prosecutor sending text

messages “in his official capacity” with the prosecutor sending text messages while

“acting within the scope of his employment.” Id. at 881-82.

Lower appellate courts have relied on this well-established legal principal in

multiple different contexts. See West v. Vermillion, 196 Wn. App. 627, 635, 384

P.3d 634 (2016) (under PRA, when agency employee or other agent acts within the

scope of their employment, their actions are tantamount to actions of the agency

itself); Broyles v. Thurston County, 147 Wn. App. 409, 428, 195 P.3d 985 (2008)

(county can be liable for discriminatory actions of county prosecutor because

municipal corporation agents acting within scope of their employment are actions of

the municipal corporation itself); Mauch v. Kissling, 56 Wn. App. 312, 316, 783

P.2d 601 (1989) (Boy Scouts of America would be liable as a corporation for the

actions of its agent if individual who committed tort was acting with apparent 16 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

authority of corporation because the actions of agents are actions of the corporation

itself). Thus, acts within the scope of employment are within one’s capacity as a

governmental employee, and this case falls squarely within RCW 4.96.020’s presuit

notice requirement.

c. The scope of article II, section 26 of the Washington Constitution contemplates ordinary torts within the scope of employment

Hanson argues that suits against an employee in their individual capacity,

instead of their “official capacity,” do not implicate sovereign immunity. Pet’r’s

Suppl. Br. at 6-7. However, the scope of article II, section 26 is not so limited.

First, as discussed above, our respondeat superior case law establishes that an

employee taking an act within the scope of their government employment is an act

of the governmental entity. Therefore, acts within the scope of employment are done

within one’s official capacity whether one is sued in their individual or official

capacity.

Second, article II, section 26 is not limited to lawsuits filed against State in

title. It provides, “The legislature shall direct by law, in what manner, and in what

courts, suits may be brought against the state.” RCW 4.92.090, enacted pursuant to

this constitutional provision, provides,

The state of Washington, whether acting in its governmental or proprietary capacity, shall be liable for damages arising out of its tortious conduct to the same extent as if it were a private person or corporation.

17 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

RCW 4.96.010, the statute extending the abolition of sovereign immunity to local

governments, uses similar wording. McDevitt, 179 Wn.2d at 65.

Our court has previously interpreted article II, section 26 and RCW 4.92.090

very broadly:

This [waiver] statute is “one of the broadest waivers of sovereign immunity in the country” and makes the State presumptively liable for its alleged tortious conduct “in all instances in which the Legislature has not indicated otherwise.”

H.B.H. v. State, 192 Wn.2d 154, 179, 429 P.3d 484 (2018) (quoting Savage v. State,

127 Wn.2d 434, 444-45, 899 P.2d 1270 (1995)).

The waiver statute explicitly makes the State liable to the same extent as if it

were a private person or corporation. Id. So, “when assessing the State’s liability, it

is appropriate to draw analogies between the State’s conduct and comparable

conduct performed in the private sector.” Id. This would include acts committed by

employees within the scope of employment as the legislature has not indicated that

the State’s respondeat superior liability differs from the respondeat superior liability

of a private entity.

While “the waiver is not without limitations,” the limits have typically been

procedural in nature, such as requiring notice of claims, restricting execution on

judgments, and providing a specific fund from which the payment of claims and

judgments must be made. Debra L. Stephens & Bryan P. Harnetiaux, The Value of

Government Tort Liability: Washington State’s Journey from Immunity to 18 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

Accountability, 30 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 35, 42 (2006). The Washington Legislature

has partially restored immunity for certain limited types of conduct, such as a statute

relieving state liability for damage or injury due to existence of structures over a

specified height spanning public highways, or a statute providing conditional

immunity for the release of information regarding sex offenders, or a statute granting

qualified immunity to municipal employees with responsibilities for electrical

utilities. Id. at 43 n.45. “The legislature has not retreated whatsoever from the notion

of a broad waiver of sovereign immunity. In fact, the opposite is true.” Id. at 43.

In her 2006 article, Justice Stephens argued that the waiver covered both

liability for “‘ordinary torts,’ such as negligent driving or medical malpractice,

which may be committed by public and private actors alike,” as well as tortious

conduct committed in the course of making governing decisions. Id. at 52-54. The

reasoning of this article was cited with approval by this court in McDevitt, in which

we upheld presuit filing notice requirements as constitutional and a proper exercise

of sovereign power under article II, section 26. 179 Wn.2d at 66-67.

The legislature’s power to waive sovereign immunity under article II, section

26 is not restricted to those torts for which a plaintiff has chosen to sue both the

governmental agency along with the governmental tortfeasor acting within the scope

of employment or those torts for which a plaintiff chooses to sue the governmental

tortfeasor in their official capacity versus in their individual capacity. Our court

19 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

certainly did not indicate this level of specificity when it recognized the legislature’s

amendment to RCW 4.96.020: “In response to our decision in Bosteder, the

legislature amended RCW 4.96.020 to provide that claims against individual

government employees are subject to the claims filing statute.” Wright v. Terrell,

162 Wn.2d 192, 195 n.1, 170 P.3d 570 (2007) (citing LAWS OF 2006, ch. 82, § 3).

This is not restricted to those claims filed against an employee in their “official

capacity,” as opposed to their “individual capacity,” as Hanson suggests.

Further, relying on precedent, our Court of Appeals has held that the presuit

notice statutes apply when a government employee acts within the scope of

employment. As discussed in more detail above, in Hardesty and Woods, the Court

of Appeals recognized that suits against individuals acting within the scope of

employment are subject to the presuit notice requirements because acts of an

employee within the scope of employment are acts of the governmental entity.

Further, as discussed in more detail below, even when sued individually, the State is

the one against which any judgment will be enforced, not the individual.

These Court of Appeals opinions have been overruled in part to the extent

Bosteder later found the statute in effect at the time did not extend the presuit notice

requirement to claims against employees. But the statute has since been amended.

In addition, the underlying reasoning as to acts within the scope of employment,

however, was not overruled, and we find it persuasive. Washington courts have long

20 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

interpreted that negligence arising from employee acts within the scope of

employment is within the scope of what the State can regulate under article II,

section 26. Selective filing and amendments to complaints do not change that in this

case, a government employee is being sued for acts within the scope of her

employment, and the legislature has the constitutional power to regulate in what

manner she can be sued as a government employee for acts within the scope of

employment. We decline to limit this constitutional power of the State.

d. We decline to follow federal tribal sovereign immunity case law when interpreting article II, section 26 of the Washington Constitution

Hanson also relies on Lewis v. Clarke, 581 U.S. 155, 137 S. Ct. 1285, 197 L.

Ed. 2d 631 (2017), for the distinction between individual capacity lawsuits and

official capacity lawsuits and that suits against employees individually are not suits

against the State subject to sovereign immunity. Pet’r’s Suppl. Br. at 4-7.

In Lewis, the Supreme Court considered whether an employee of the Mohegan

Tribe of Indians of Connecticut (the Tribe) was immune under the Tribe’s sovereign

immunity in a case brought against the employee in his personal capacity for a

tortious car accident while in the scope of his employment. 581 U.S. at 157-58. In

determining whether the employee was entitled to tribal immunity, the Court opined

that “in the context of lawsuits against state and federal employees or entities, courts

should look to whether the sovereign is the real party in interest to determine whether

21 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

sovereign immunity bars the suit.” Id. at 161-62. “In making this assessment, courts

may not simply rely on the characterization of the parties in the complaint, but rather

must determine in the first instance whether the remedy sought is truly against the

sovereign.” Id. at 162.

The Court also acknowledged the importance of individual versus official

capacity suits. Id. It opined that “[i]n an official-capacity claim, the relief sought is

only nominally against the official and in fact is against the official’s office and thus

the sovereign itself” and that when officials leave office their successors assume the

role in the litigation. Id. Therefore, “[t]he real party in interest is the government

entity, not the named official.” Id. In contrast, when sued in one’s individual

capacity, the plaintiff seeks individual liability and the “real party in interest is the

individual, not the sovereign.” Id. at 162-63. In examining these principles, the Court

held that the real party in interest was the employee, not the Mohegan Gaming

Authority, because

[t]his is a negligence action arising from a tort committed by Clarke on an interstate highway within the State of Connecticut. The suit is brought against a tribal employee operating a vehicle within the scope of his employment but on state lands, and the judgment will not operate against the Tribe. This is not a suit against Clarke in his official capacity. It is simply a suit against Clarke to recover for his personal actions, which “will not require action by the sovereign or disturb the sovereign’s property.”

22 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

Id. at 163 (quoting Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Com. Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 687,

69 S. Ct. 1457, 93 L. Ed. 1628 (1949)). Further, “[i]n ruling that Clarke was immune

from this suit solely because he was acting within the scope of his employment, the

[Connecticut Supreme Court] extended sovereign immunity for tribal employees

beyond what common-law sovereign immunity principles would recognize for either

state or federal employees.” Id. at 163-64.

The Court went on to examine the indemnity agreement between Clarke and

the Mohegan Gaming Authority. In doing so, it held that “an indemnification

provision cannot, as a matter of law, extend sovereign immunity to individual

employees who would otherwise not fall under its protective cloak.” Id. at 164-65.

“The critical inquiry is who may be legally bound by the court’s adverse judgment,

not who will ultimately pick up the tab.” Id. at 165. The Court ultimately held,

Here, the Connecticut courts exercise no jurisdiction over the Tribe or the Gaming Authority, and their judgments will not bind the Tribe or its instrumentalities in any way. The Tribe’s indemnification provision does not somehow convert the suit against Clarke into a suit against the sovereign; when Clarke is sued in his individual capacity, he is held responsible only for his individual wrongdoing. Moreover, indemnification is not a certainty here. Clarke will not be indemnified by the Gaming Authority should it determine that he engaged in “wanton, reckless, or malicious” activity. Mohegan Tribe Code § 4–52. That determination is not necessary to the disposition of the Lewises’ suit against Clarke in the Connecticut state courts, which is a separate legal matter.

23 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

Id. at 165-66. The Court also opined that State indemnity agreements are voluntary,

and so do not implicate the rationale of allocating scarce resources. Id. at 167.

The Court thus concluded that tribal sovereign immunity is not implicated

when a suit is brought against employees in their individual capacity and “[a]n

indemnification statute such as the one at issue here does not alter the analysis.” Id.

at 168 (emphasis added). Relying on Lewis, Hanson thus argues that suits against an

employee in their individual capacity does not implicate sovereign immunity. Pet’r’s

Suppl. Br. at 6-7. In addition, because the indemnity statutes that concern the

employee and the governmental entity are outside the court process, it does not have

a bearing on the case. Id. at 10.

However, as the State AGO recognizes, Lewis in many ways is materially

different from the present case and is not dispositive. First, Lewis was decided in

reference to tribal sovereign immunity, relied on federal cases applying federal law

and the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution and analyzed claims

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Amicus Curiae Br. of State of Wash. at 25-26. In contrast,

the present case concerns article II, section 26 of the Washington Constitution, and

this court is the final arbiter of state constitutional law. Id. at 26. While the United

States Supreme Court has looked to the Eleventh Amendment when determining

who may be sued for violations of federal civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, it has

done so only to establish congressional intent in amending that federal statute. See

24 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66-67, 71, 109 S. Ct. 2304, 105 L.

Ed. 2d 45 (1989) (state employees “acting in their official capacities” are outside the

class of “persons” subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). It is difficult to see

how the Eleventh Amendment provides us with any insight into the intent of framers

of our state constitution when they passed article II, section 26 or into our state

legislature’s intent when passing RCW 4.96.020 and .041. The federal and state

constitutional provisions and federal and state statutes regarding suits against the

government are not the same, and therefore we decline to interpret them as such.

Second, the State AGO focuses on the language in Lewis indicating that the

inquiry into the party of interest rests on who may be bound by the judgment, and

not who will ultimately pay it. Amicus Curiae Br. of State of Wash. at 27-28. The

State AGO then distinguishes the Washington indemnification statutes from those at

issue in Lewis.

Under RCW 4.96.041(1), an employee of a local governmental entity can

request the entity cover their defense to a claim that arises “from acts or omissions

while performing or in good faith purporting to perform his or her official duties.”

The request shall be granted if the entity finds this to be the case. RCW 4.96.041(2).

Furthermore, if a judgment is entered against the employee, “thereafter the judgment

creditor shall seek satisfaction for nonpunitive damages only from the local

governmental entity, and judgment for nonpunitive damages shall not become a lien

25 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

upon any property of such officer, employee, or volunteer.” RCW 4.96.041(4); see

also RCW 4.92.075 (containing similar provisions for employees of the State).

Accordingly, the local government entity, not the employee, is bound by any

judgment. The Mohegan Gaming Authority indemnity statute at issue in Lewis does

not similarly bind the Tribe and release the employee from the judgment. Amicus

Curiae Br. of State of Wash. at 28 (discussing Mohegan Tribal Code § 4-52).

Therefore, this case is materially distinguishable from Lewis.

Hanson contends that this court has already rejected this reasoning in Bosteder

because it did not adopt similar reasoning from Hardesty. Answer to AGO Amicus

at 15. We disagree. As discussed above, in Hardesty, the Court of Appeals extended

the claims notice statute to individuals, although the statute at the time did not refer

to individuals, because the State was required to defend and satisfy any judgment

against the employee. 82 Wn. App. at 260-61. In Bosteder, in the lead opinion,

Justice Fairhurst would have adopted this reasoning and extended the protections of

RCW 4.96.020(4)’s claims notice to individuals within the scope of employment.

155 Wn.2d at 41-42. However, five justices rejected this position because the plain

language of the claims notice statute did not explicitly extend to suits against

government employees. Id. at 58 (Sanders, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part),

59 (Ireland, J. Pro Tem., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Justice Sanders

concluded that “the legislature could easily have added a few words to RCW

26 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

4.96.020(4) if it intended the statute to apply to city officials as individuals.” Id. at

57 (Sanders, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part). The opinions of Justice

Sanders and Justice Pro Tempore Ireland make no mention of Hardesty or Woods or

any disagreement with their underlying reasoning regarding indemnity, instead

focusing on the plain statutory language. In response, the legislature promptly added

language extending this protection to individuals. Further supporting the position

that under the current statute, the legislature plainly did intend for this protection to

apply to individuals.

Lewis can also be distinguished on the grounds that Lewis concerned absolute

immunity, when the case at issue concerns a procedural presuit notice requirement.

See Amicus Br. of WCIA et al. at 20. The present case is not a matter of a complete

bar to recovery or an extension of immunity, it simply requires notice to the

governmental entity that will ultimately be bound by any judgment prior to

commencing the suit. Accordingly, Lewis, does not dictate the outcome in this case

and we decline to follow it.

e. The location and language of the indemnity statute, RCW 4.96.041, confirms that cases against employees acting within the scope of employment are effectively cases against the government as the government is liable for the judgment

Carmona contends that because of the indemnity statute Carmona cannot be

held personally liable and that if a judgment were entered against her, the only source

of recovery would be from the governmental agency. Resp’ts’ Suppl. Br. at 4. 27 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

Therefore, even when an employee is sued individually, if the employee was acting

within the scope of employment, “the plaintiff is, in reality, seeking recovery from

the government entity employer.” Id. We agree.

Although RCW 4.96.041 is currently found in the same statutory scheme as

RCW 4.96.020, it was formerly codified in a different chapter. See LAWS OF 1979,

Ex. Sess., ch. 72, § 1. However, in 1993, the legislature recodified former RCW

36.16.134 (1989), a provision relating only to counties, “as a section in chapter 4.96

RCW.” LAWS OF 1993, ch. 449, § 14. In doing so, the legislature laid out that

[t]his act is designed to provide a single, uniform procedure for bringing a claim for damages against a local governmental entity. The existing procedures, contained in chapter 36.45 RCW, counties, chapter 35.31 RCW, cities and towns, chapter 35A.31 RCW, optional municipal code, and chapter 4.96 RCW, other political subdivisions, municipal corporations, and quasi-municipal corporations, are revised and consolidated into chapter 4.96 RCW.

LAWS OF 1993, ch. 449, § 1. Although the indemnity and notice statutes may not

have originally contemplated each other, the 1993 amendments show that the

legislature did want them connected to create uniform procedures for suits against

all governmental entities. The reasoning in Hardesty and Woods, as discussed above,

coupled with the amended statutory language is persuasive and requires that the

claim notice statute apply in the present case as it exposes governmental funds to

liability.

28 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

While the determination of whether an employee was acting in good faith in

the scope of employment may not be readily apparent by the time a plaintiff files

suit, that is not a concern in this case. Hanson sued Carmona alleging that she was

acting in the scope of employment. The government will indemnify if an employee

was acting within the scope of employment at the time of the negligence. The

government will also be the only party against which a judgment can be enforced.

Hanson was aware as she alleged in her lawsuit that she was suing Carmona for acts

within the scope of employment. That she later amended the complaint to avoid the

notice statute makes no difference as to whether Carmona was acting within the

scope of employment or whether the presuit notice statute applied at the outset. We

hold that RCW 4.96.020(4) applies to this case and that Hanson was required to give

SEW ALTC notice prior to suing Carmona for acts committed within the scope of

her employment.

IV. RCW 4.96.020(4) does not violate separation of powers

Because we hold that RCW 4.96.020(4) does apply to government employees

sued for acts within the scope of employment, even when sued in their individual

capacity, we also reach the issue of whether RCW 4.96.020(4) violates separation of

powers. We hold that it does not.

The Washington State Constitution does not contain a formal separation of

powers clause, but the division of government into branches has been presumed

29 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

throughout our history. Carrick v. Locke, 125 Wn.2d 129, 134-35, 882 P.2d 173

(1994). “The doctrine of separation of powers divides power into three coequal

branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial.” Putman, 166 Wn.2d

at 980. When determining if an action violates separation of powers, the court asks

“whether the activity of one branch threatens the independence or integrity or

invades the prerogatives of another.” Zylstra v. Piva, 85 Wn.2d 743, 750, 539 P.2d

823 (1975).

“Some fundamental functions are within the inherent power of the judicial branch, including the power to promulgate rules for its practice. If a statute appears to conflict with a court rule, this court will first attempt to harmonize them and give effect to both, but if they cannot be harmonized, the court rule will prevail in procedural matters and the statute will prevail in substantive matters.”

Waples v. Yi, 169 Wn.2d 152, 158, 234 P.3d 187 (2010) (quoting Putman, 166

Wn.2d at 980).

RCW 4.96.020(4) reads in full,

No action subject to the claim filing requirements of this section shall be commenced against any local governmental entity, or against any local governmental entity’s officers, employees, or volunteers, acting in such capacity, for damages arising out of tortious conduct until sixty calendar days have elapsed after the claim has first been presented to the agent of the governing body thereof. The applicable period of limitations within which an action must be commenced shall be tolled during the sixty calendar day period. For the purposes of the applicable period of limitations, an action commenced within five court days after the sixty calendar day period has elapsed is deemed to have been presented on the first day after the sixty calendar day period elapsed.

30 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

(Emphasis added.)

Hanson alleges that this prefiling notice requirement conflicts with CR 3(a)

because it changes the procedure one must follow in order to commence a lawsuit.

Pet. for Rev. at 8-9. We agree. However, Hanson also contends that this conflict

violates separation of powers. See Pet’r’s Suppl. Br. at 2. With this assertion, we

disagree.

CR 3(a) reads, in pertinent part, “Except as provided in rule 4.1, a civil action

is commenced by service of a copy of a summons together with a copy of a

complaint, as provided in rule 4 or by filing a complaint.”

Previously, Washington courts have examined the constitutionality of

prefiling procedures and court rules. In Putman, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against

Wenatchee Valley Medical Center and some of its employees for failing to diagnose

her ovarian cancer. 166 Wn.2d at 978. The trial court dismissed the claims because

Putman did not comply with RCW 7.70.150’s requirement that a plaintiff in a

medical malpractice case file a certificate of merit at the time of commencing the

action. Id. Putman appealed, alleging that this requirement violated separation of

powers because it conflicted with CR 8 and CR 11 and thereby encroached on the

judiciary’s inherent power to create court rules. Id. at 979-80. This court concluded

that RCW 7.70.150’s certificate of merit requirement directly conflicted with CR 8

31 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

and CR 11. Id. at 982-83. Because the statute was procedural, the court rules

prevailed over the statute. Id. at 985.

We recently reaffirmed this holding as to state defendants in Martin v.

Department of Corrections, 199 Wn.2d 557, 568, 510 P.3d 321 (2022), specifically

distinguishing McDevitt, discussed in detail below. We held that because the

language in the statute does not specifically apply to the State, the statute did not

invoke sovereign immunity principles, and so the same analysis from Putman

applies to state defendants. Id. at 566-67.

About a year after Putman, this court decided Waples. In that case, the court

examined the constitutionality of former RCW 7.70.100(1) (2006), “which requires

a plaintiff to provide health care providers with 90 days’ notice of the plaintiff’s

intention to file a medical malpractice suit.” Waples, 169 Wn.2d at 155. The

consolidated cases concerned two medical malpractice plaintiffs who did not comply

with the statutory notice requirements. Id. at 156-57. The claims were ultimately

dismissed. Id. On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the claims notice statute

conflicted with CR 3(a) and its procedures for the commencement of a lawsuit. Id.

at 159. Relying on the analysis in Putman, the court concluded that the statute did

conflict because “[r]equiring notice adds an additional step for commencing a suit

to those required by CR 3(a). And, failure to provide the notice required by RCW

7.70.100(1) results in a lawsuit’s dismissal, as it did here, even where the complaint

32 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

was properly filed and served pursuant to CR 3(a).” Id. at 160. The court held that

just like in Putman, the rules could not be harmonized, they did involve procedures,

and CR 3(a) prevailed over the statute. Id. at 161. The statute was therefore

unconstitutional. Id. Importantly, the case did not involve governmental entities.

Three years later, the court examined the interaction of the Waples holding

and article II, section 26 of the Washington Constitution in McDevitt. 179 Wn.2d at

62. This case concerned the same claim notice statute, RCW 7.70.100(1), and its

constitutionality as applied to claims against Harborview Medical Center, a state

entity. In a fractured opinion, five justices held that RCW 7.70.100(1)’s notice

requirement is constitutional “as applied against the State on the grounds that the

legislature may establish conditions precedent, including presuit notice

requirements.” Id. at 63 (J.M. Johnson, J., lead opinion), 81-82 (Fairhurst, J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“I agree with the lead opinion that article

II, section 26 of the Washington State Constitution empowers the legislature to

require a 90 day presuit notification period before filing suit against the State or any

of its subdivisions. I wholly join the lead opinion’s holding that the presuit notice

provision in former RCW 7.70.100(1) (2006) is constitutional.”). In doing so the

lead opinion recognized that in Waples the court found former RCW 7.70.100(1)

unconstitutional, but that the court did not have facts before it to consider whether

article II, section 26 permitted the presuit notice requirements when bringing suit

33 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

against the State. Id. at 77-81. Because of this, the lead opinion concluded that

Waples was an as-applied invalidation of the statute. Id. The lead opinion also gave

this case prospective application only. Id. Four justices concurred in result only. Id.

at 77-81. (Chambers, J. Pro Tem., concurring in result only).

As indicated above, we agree with Hanson that RCW 4.96.020(4)’s

requirements conflict with CR 3(a)’s requirements to commence a suit because they

add a precondition not found in the court rule. However, in McDevitt, five justices

held that presuit notice requirements are constitutional as applied to governmental

tortfeasors. Because we conclude that RCW 4.96.020(4) applies in the present case,

consistent with McDevitt, we hold that the legislature is within its constitutional

powers under article II, section 26 to set preconditions to suing a governmental

entity’s employee acting within the scope of employment, even when they are

purported to be sued in their individual capacity. Therefore, RCW 4.96.020(4),

although it conflicts with CR 3(a), does not violate separation of powers.

Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals.

CONCLUSION

We affirm the Court of Appeals on different grounds. We hold that RCW

4.96.020(4) applies even when an employee is sued in their individual capacity but

is acting within the scope of employment because the governmental entity is a party

in interest when its employees are sued for tortious acts committed within the scope

34 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

of their employment. In addition, we hold that this statute does not violate separation

of powers because, although RCW 4.96.020(4) and CR 3(a) conflict, the legislature

has the power to decide conditions precedent to suing the State under article II,

section 26 of the Washington Constitution. Accordingly, we remand to the trial court

for entry of summary judgment in favor of Carmona.

35 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0

WE CONCUR.

36 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0 (Stephens, J., dissenting)

No. 99823-0

STEPHENS, J. (dissenting)—RCW 4.96.020(4) requires presuit notice of tort

claims against local governmental entities and local governmental employees

“acting in such capacity.” Properly understood, the statute effectuates the

legislature’s limited constitutional authority to “direct by law, in what manner, and

in what courts, suits may be brought against the state.” WASH. CONST. art. II, § 26.

We must therefore interpret the statute consistent with constitutional limits, and such

an interpretation is possible. Utter v. Bldg. Indus. Ass’n of Wash., 182 Wn.2d 398,

434-35, 341 P.3d 953 (2015) (recognizing need to construe statutes to avoid

constitutional infirmity, when possible). Under the plain language of RCW

4.96.020(4), and consistent with article II, section 26 of our constitution, presuit

notice must be given only when bringing suit against a local governmental employee

acting in their official capacity, i.e., when the suit is actually against the government.

I would hold that Hanson was not required to give presuit notice under RCW

4.96.020(4) because Carmona did not act as an agent of the local governmental entity

in her official capacity at the time of the alleged tort. I respectfully dissent.

1 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0 (Stephens, J., dissenting)

The proper interpretation of RCW 4.96.020(4) presents a matter of statutory

construction, which we review de novo. Dep’t of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn,

LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 9, 43 P.3d 4 (2002). As the majority acknowledges, we must

interpret RCW 4.96.020(4) in light of the legislature’s waiver of sovereign immunity

and its constitutional authority to set conditions precedent to bringing suit against

the government. Majority at 6-7. The legislature codified the local governmental

waiver of sovereign immunity in 1967 pursuant to its constitutional authority to

“direct by law, in what manner, and in what courts, suits may be brought against the

state.” WASH. CONST. art. II, § 26. The waiver statute in its current form declares:

All local governmental entities, whether acting in a governmental or proprietary capacity, shall be liable for damages arising out of their tortious conduct, or the tortious conduct of their past or present officers, employees, or volunteers while performing or in good faith purporting to perform their official duties, to the same extent as if they were a private person or corporation.

RCW 4.96.010(1).

Consistent with the legislature’s authority, RCW 4.96.020(4) sets conditions

on the manner of bringing suits against local governmental entities. Medina v. Pub.

Util. Dist. No. 1 of Benton County., 147 Wn.2d 303, 312, 53 P.3d 993 (2002) (“The

Washington State Constitution specifically reserves the right of the legislature to

regulate law suits against governmental entities.”). Our interpretation of the scope

2 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0 (Stephens, J., dissenting)

of presuit notice for suits against local governmental employees must therefore be

consistent, if possible, with the legislature’s constitutional authority to set conditions

precedent to suing the government. Such a reading is possible, based on the plain

language of the statute, read in its proper context.

I. The Plain Language of RCW 4.96.020(4) Requires Presuit Notice of Claims against Governmental Employees Only When Acting in Their Official Capacity

To place the language of the presuit notice statute into context, it is important

to first examine its history. As originally enacted, the statutory requirement did not

mention governmental employees at all. See former RCW 4.96.020(4) (2001) (“No

action shall be commenced against any local governmental entity for damages

arising out of tortious conduct until sixty days have elapsed after the claim has first

been presented to and filed with the governing body thereof.”). This court

considered whether that former statute nonetheless applied to suits naming local

governmental employees in Bosteder v. City of Renton, 155 Wn.2d 18, 117 P.3d 316

(2005) (plurality opinion). Five justices concluded the statute’s failure to mention

presuit notice for claims against governmental employees meant that the statute did

not require notice for suits against individual employees. Id. at 57 (Sanders, J.,

concurring in part, dissenting in part) (“By its terms the statute plainly does not apply

to individuals.”), 59 (Ireland, J. Pro Tem., concurring in part and dissenting in part)

(“I agree with the majority except as it holds that the claim filing statute applies to

3 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0 (Stephens, J., dissenting)

individuals. The statute does not state so, and I do not think we should second-guess

the wisdom of the legislature in failing to provide this protection for individuals.”).

The lead opinion, however, concluded “that RCW 4.96.020(4) does apply to suits

against individual employees for acts committed within the scope of their

employment.” Id. at 40.

In response to Bosteder, the legislature amended the statute to require presuit

notice for claims against individual employees acting in a governmental capacity.

The statute now states that

[n]o action subject to the claim filing requirements of this section shall be commenced against any local governmental entity, or against any local governmental entity’s officers, employees, or volunteers, acting in such capacity, for damages arising out of tortious conduct until sixty calendar days have elapsed after the claim has first been presented to the agent of the governing body thereof.

RCW 4.96.020(4) (emphasis added). Our task in this case is to precisely identify

and give full effect to the legislature’s intent in using the phrase “acting in such

capacity.”

The majority concludes that “acting in such capacity” is synonymous with

“acting within the scope of employment.” Majority at 11. I disagree, as the concepts

of official capacity and vicarious liability are entirely distinct, and the legislature

could have easily used the familiar phrase “scope of employment” had it intended to

incorporate that doctrine. Instead, it used the term “capacity.” See FINAL B. REP.

4 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0 (Stephens, J., dissenting)

ON SUBSTITUTE H.B. 3120, at 2, 59th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2006) (discussing

Bosteder and concluding that “[t]he claim filing statutes that apply to tort claims

against the state or local governments are amended to specifically provide that these

statutes apply to claims against officers, employees, or volunteers of the state or local

government when acting in that capacity”). 1

A suit against a local governmental employee “acting in such capacity” is well

understood to mean a suit involving the governmental employee acting in their

official capacity, i.e., essentially as a personification of the government. A classic

example is a suit against the attorney general or secretary of state challenging a ballot

title. See, e.g., Kreidler v. Eikenberry, 111 Wn.2d 828, 766 P.2d 438 (1989)

1 The majority argues that this court has conflated the terms “scope of employment” and “official capacity.” Majority at 14 (citing Kelso v. City of Tacoma, 63 Wn.2d 913, 914, 390 P.2d 2 (1964)). I recognize that the terms have not always been clearly defined. Still, our cases identify significant differences between the concepts of sovereign immunity, from which the notice statute derives, and common law vicarious liability. Respondeat superior is a principle of generally applicable agency law, and “scope of employment” simply describes one instance in which an employee’s tortious conduct might result in vicarious liability. When a plaintiff sues both the principal and agent, the result may be joint and several liability. See, e.g., Houser v. City of Redmond, 91 Wn.2d 36, 586 P.2d 482 (1978) (addressing municipal liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior). In contrast, under the notice statute, sovereign immunity principles—not vicarious liability principles—are at play because article II, section 26 empowers the legislature to set preconditions for suits against governmental entities. RCW 4.96.020(4) does not affect common law principles of vicarious liability, just as it does not affect indemnity principles. Indeed, the statutory indemnity the majority relies on is not a feature of the presuit notice statute. See majority at 28 (citing RCW 4.96.041(1)). The legislature had to enact a separate statutory mechanism for government employers to defend and indemnify their employees for acts within the scope of their employment. RCW 4.96.041. As discussed below, that a separate statutory scheme is necessary confirms that acting within the scope of employment is not the same as acting in official capacity (i.e., as the government).

5 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0 (Stephens, J., dissenting)

(citizens’ initiative group brought suit against attorney general and secretary of state

challenging the attorney general’s drafted ballot title). We have also relied on this

distinguishing feature of “official capacity” as meaning “acting as the government”

in other contexts—for example, where a statute specified venue for suits against

government officials for acts committed in their official capacity. Eubanks v.

Brown, 180 Wn.2d 590, 602, 327 P.3d 635 (2014) (finding RCW 4.12.020(2) did

not apply because “[e]mployment alone is not sufficient to make an act in virtue of

a public office”). In Eubanks, we expressly distinguished “scope of employment”

from “acting in the capacity of the government,” stating:

An officer acts in the course and scope of employment if he or she acts to serve the purposes of his or her employer—the public. An officer acts in virtue of his public office when acting with authority granted to him because of that position, regardless of underlying motivations.

Id. (emphasis and citation omitted).

Rather than looking to history and context, the majority relies on dictionary

definitions of the term “capacity.” In the majority’s view, because “capacity” refers

generically to “‘[t]he role in which one performs an act,’” majority at 13 (alteration

in original) (quoting BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 257 (11th ed. 2019)), it follows that

the presuit notice statute applies to “all acts taken by government employees acting

within the scope of employment even when the governmental agency is not sued.”

Id. But, equating official capacity with scope of employment sweeps up employee

6 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0 (Stephens, J., dissenting)

conduct that no one—including the governmental entity—would argue constitutes

official duties, even though it gives rise to vicarious liability for the employer. For

example, we have recognized several times that purposeful misconduct of an

employee can be imputed to the employer under vicarious liability. See, e.g., Robel

v. Roundup Corp., 148 Wn.2d 35, 54, 59 P.3d 611 (2002) (employer held vicariously

liable for damages caused by employees who harassed a coworker while

“perform[ing] the duties they were hired to perform”); Dickinson v. Edwards, 105

Wn.2d 457, 470, 716 P.2d 814 (1986) (“This court has held that an employer may

be liable for the negligent acts of his employee, although such act may be contrary

to instructions.” (citing Greene v. St. Paul-Mercury Indem. Co., 51 Wn.2d 569, 573,

320 P.2d 311 (1958))); Smith v. Leber, 34 Wn.2d 611, 209 P.2d 297 (1949)

(determining tortfeasor acted within scope of employment when he drove a

company-owned truck against express instructions of supervisor).

While the majority’s overbroad interpretation would regard almost all

employee actions as official acts, the plain language of the statute reflects a more

limited reach. As discussed next, this narrower scope is confirmed by the

constitutional provision that supports the statute, WASH. CONST. art. II, § 26, which

cabins the legislature’s power to place conditions on a plaintiff’s right to seek redress

and access our courts.

7 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0 (Stephens, J., dissenting)

II. RCW 4.96.020(4) Cannot Exceed the Legislature’s Constitutional Authority To Determine the Way Suits May Be Brought against Governmental Entities, Including When a Lawsuit Names an Employee in Their Official Capacity

The presuit notice statute must be read within the context of the legislature’s

constitutional authority to enact that requirement. Following the waiver of sovereign

immunity, the legislature may condition only the way “suits may be brought against

the state.” WASH. CONST. art. II, § 26 (emphasis added). While this authority

extends to local governmental entities, the State admits that “[l]egislation enacted

under article II, section 26 is valid so long as its reach is commensurate with the

scope of sovereign immunity.” Amicus Curiae Br. of State of Wash. at 6. 2 This

means any precondition to bringing suit against a governmental employee must be

limited to suits that are functionally suits against the governmental entity, such as

those that were previously barred by sovereign immunity. Not all suits against

individual employees acting within the scope of their employment fall within this

category.

The legislature defined the narrow category of applicable suits when it

codified the waiver of sovereign immunity for suits against local governmental

2 As discussed below, for example, a local governmental entity never enjoyed immunity for actions taken by employees in a proprietary capacity. See, e.g., Hewitt v. City of Seattle, 62 Wash. 377, 113 P. 1084 (1911) (because maintaining streets is a proprietary function, city was liable for a pedestrian’s injuries after the street superintendent, who was driving a car in the course of his employment, hit the pedestrian).

8 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0 (Stephens, J., dissenting)

entities, pursuant to its article II, section 26 authority. It did so by waiving immunity

for governmental employees “while performing or in good faith purporting to

perform their official duties.” RCW 4.96.010(1) (emphasis added). By using that

language, the legislature intended to treat suits against local governmental

employees as suits against the local governmental entity when based on the

employees’ official capacity. The plain language of the presuit notice statute mirrors

this language because it requires notice of claims against governmental employees

“acting in such capacity.” RCW 4.96.020(4). Read in the proper context, it becomes

evident that the legislature was operating within the boundaries of its constitutional

authority under article II, section 26 by requiring notice for suits against

governmental employees only when they are named in their official capacity for the

governmental entity.

The majority loses this constitutional thread by relying on respondeat superior

principles to conclude that acts within the scope of employment equate to acts done

in a governmental employee’s official capacity. Majority at 17 (determining that

“acts within the scope of employment are within one’s capacity as a governmental

employee”). As discussed, the legislature used the term “capacity” rather than

“scope of employment” when it amended RCW 4.96.020 in response to this court’s

decision in Bosteder. LAWS OF 2006, ch. 82, § 1. The majority argues we later

described the statutory amendment as embracing “scope of employment” principles,

9 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0 (Stephens, J., dissenting)

but the sentence in the per curiam decision the majority relies on is not so specific.

See majority at 20 (“‘In response to our decision in Bosteder, the legislature amended

RCW 4.96.020 to provide that claims against individual government employees are

subject to the claims filing statute.’” (quoting Wright v. Terrell, 162 Wn.2d 192, 195

n.1, 170 P.3d 570 (2007))). Instead, this language is wholly consistent with the more

limited principle describing when an individual governmental employee is sued in

their “official capacity.”

By failing to read the presuit notice requirement in light of the legislature’s

waiver of sovereign immunity, the majority broadens the presuit notice requirement

beyond the constitutional limits of the legislature’s power to set conditions precedent

to the government being sued. Even before the State’s waiver of sovereign

immunity, local governmental entities were often subject to liability. See, e.g.,

Sutton v. Snohomish, 11 Wash. 24, 39 P. 273 (1895) (city held liable for damages

sustained by plaintiff when he fell into a city-created hole in the street). Any

immunity depended on whether a local governmental actor was performing a

governmental function or a proprietary function: “municipalities are not liable for

the negligence of their officers and employees when engaged in the performance of

governmental or public duties, but are liable for their negligence when performing

duties consequent upon the exercise, by the municipality, of its corporate or private

powers.” Hagerman v. City of Seattle, 189 Wash. 694, 696, 66 P.2d 1152 (1937).

10 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0 (Stephens, J., dissenting)

Immunity was granted “to municipal corporations when acting in a governmental

capacity.” Id. at 697. One of the several reasons the Hagerman court listed for this

limited grant of immunity was the fact that “[m]embers of municipal departments in

the exercise of public governmental duties are agents of the state and not of the city,

and hence the doctrine of respondeat superior has no application.” Id. At bottom,

the core of the analysis was whether the state employees were properly exercising

the power of the government through their official duties.

The understanding that local governmental employee immunity relates only

to their official capacity is demonstrated by the foundational case in which this court

determined that the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity extended to local

governments. Kelso v. City of Tacoma, 63 Wn.2d 913, 914, 390 P.2d 2 (1964). In

Kelso, the court considered whether the city of Tacoma could be held liable for a

police officer getting into a car crash and injuring the plaintiff. The court framed the

issue as “whether a municipal corporation, a subdivision of the state, retains

governmental immunity for the tortious acts of its agents while performing a

governmental function in view of RCW 4.92.090 wherein the state consents to be

sued for its tortious conduct.” Id. In concluding that local governments were not

immune from liability in tort, the court noted that the actions of the police officer

were effectively actions of the city of Tacoma: “The city of Tacoma was liable for

its tortious conduct, if any, at the time of the automobile collision in which the

11 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0 (Stephens, J., dissenting)

plaintiff was injured.” Id. at 919. Contrary to the majority’s reading of Kelso, it did

not hold that common law principles of respondeat superior define the scope of

governmental liability following the waiver of sovereign immunity. See majority at

14 (concluding that Kelso held that “acting in the scope of employment, is the

equivalent of the tortious conduct of the city” (emphasis omitted)). The governing

principles may overlap in certain cases, but they are not coextensive.

This point is clearly explained in the leading United States Supreme Court

case, Lewis v. Clarke, which the majority simply refuses to follow. 581 U.S. 155,

137 S. Ct. 1285, 197 L. Ed. 2d 631 (2017). In that case, the Court considered

whether a tribal employee who hit someone while driving a car and acting within the

scope of their employment was immune from suit. Id. at 158-61. The Court

observed that the basis for an employee partaking in the sovereign immunity of a

governmental entity is rooted in the employee acting in their official capacity. The

Court stated that “lawsuits brought against employees in their official capacity

‘represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an

officer is an agent,’ and they may also be barred by sovereign immunity.” Id. at 162

(quoting Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66, 105 S. Ct. 3099, 87 L. Ed. 2d

114 (1985)). The Court further explained that “[i]n an official-capacity claim, the

relief sought is only nominally against the official and in fact is against the official’s

office and thus the sovereign itself.” Id. Conversely, if the tribal employee was not

12 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0 (Stephens, J., dissenting)

acting in their official capacity, then the suit was against the employee individual in

their “‘personal capacity’” even though they were acting within the scope of

employment. Id. at 162-63 (quoting Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 27, 112 S. Ct. 358,

116 L. Ed. 2d 301 (1991)).3

The reasoning in Lewis is persuasive and consistent with both this court’s

precedent regarding sovereign immunity of governmental employees and the proper

reading of RCW 4.96.020(4) as limited to “official capacity” acts. I would adhere

to the plain language of the statute understood in its historical and constitutional

context, and conclude that RCW 4.96.020(4) does not require presuit notice for

claims against a local governmental employee in their individual capacity.

III. The Statutory Scheme Permitting a Governmental Entity To Defend an Employee Does Not Convert an Individual Suit into a Suit against the Government

In support of its conclusion that RCW 4.96.020(4) applies to suits against

governmental employees in their individual capacity, the majority makes much of a

separately enacted indemnity scheme that permits a local governmental employer to

defend and indemnify their governmental employee under certain circumstances.

Majority at 28-29; see RCW 4.96.041. The majority assumes the statutory

conditions for indemnity are met before any suit is filed, and it accepts Carmona’s

3 As discussed below, the Court also explained why statutory indemnity arrangements have no bearing on whether a suit is against a governmental entity. Lewis, 581 U.S. at 165-67.

13 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0 (Stephens, J., dissenting)

argument that the nature of the suit (i.e., whether it is against an individual or the

government) depends on whether the governmental employer may ultimately pay

any judgment. Majority at 28 (concluding presuit notice is required because the

indemnity statute “exposes governmental funds to liability”). This argument

conflates two distinct concepts and misapprehends how questions of “scope of

employment” arise in ordinary tort litigation.

The indemnity statute simply permits a local governmental employee who is

sued to request that the local governmental employer provide and fund the

employee’s defense. RCW 4.96.041(1). If, after the employee’s request, the

relevant local governmental authority “finds that the acts or omissions of the officer,

employee, or volunteer were, or in good faith purported to be, within the scope of

his or her official duties,” then the local governmental entity must pay the expenses

for defending the suit. RCW 4.96.041(2). When the local governmental entity has

provided the employee’s defense and “the court hearing the action has found that the

officer, employee, or volunteer was acting within the scope of his or her official

duties,” then any adverse judgment against the employee can be sought only “from

the local governmental entity, and judgment for nonpunitive damages shall not

become a lien upon any property of such officer, employee, or volunteer.” RCW

4.96.041(4). The majority mistakenly construes the government’s decision to

14 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0 (Stephens, J., dissenting)

defend and ultimately pay any adverse judgment against a governmental employee

as effectively converting the suit into a claim against the local governmental entity.

To the contrary, the fact that this separate statutory framework is necessary

for an employee to receive a defense and indemnification confirms that suits against

governmental employees individually are not, ab initio, suits against the

governmental entity. The legislature passed RCW 4.96.041 to protect certain

governmental employees against exposure to tort liability in situations where joint

and several liability would apply. See FINAL B. REP. on SUBSTITUTE S.B. 2411, 46th

Leg., 1st Ex. Sess. (Wash. 1979) (bill resolves the issue that local governmental

entities “are not currently authorized to defend suits and pay judgements against their

employees and officers who have been sued for acts or omissions performed in the

course of official duties”). Although RCW 4.96.041 currently appears in the same

statutory chapter as the provisions related to the local governmental waiver of

sovereign immunity, it was not enacted as part of those provisions. See LAWS OF

1979, Ex. Sess. ch. 72, § 1 (originally codified at RCW 36.16.134). In fact, the

indemnity statute contains its own notice provision, which requires the governmental

employee to alert their employer of the pending suit. RCW 4.96.041(1) (when action

brought against governmental employee, that employee “may request the local

governmental entity to authorize the defense”), .041(2) (local governmental entity

begins indemnification process only after the employee provides notice). The way

15 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0 (Stephens, J., dissenting)

this provision operates demonstrates that the legislature was not contemplating a

connection between ultimate indemnification and the presuit notice requirement or

any other conditions precedent to bringing suit against local governmental entities.

Indeed, it will often be difficult for a plaintiff to determine before filing suit

whether an individual tortfeasor is a governmental employee who was acting within

the scope of their employment at the time of the incident giving rise to the claim. As

RCW 4.96.041 makes clear, that is a factual question, and it does not follow from

any allegation in a plaintiff’s complaint. RCW 4.96.041(4) (local governmental

entity bound to judgment only after “the court . . . [finds] that the officer, employee,

or volunteer was acting within the scope of his or her official duties”). The majority

seems to accept as “fact” the allegation in Hanson’s original complaint that Carmona

was acting within the scope of her employment; but that complaint is not even before

us and no determination has been made as to whether Carmona was acting within

the scope of her employment at the time of the collision. See majority at 15

(asserting that it is “undisputed” that Carmona is acting within the scope of her

employment). 4

4 It seems clear that the unique facts of this case, in which Hanson amended her complaint after Southeast Washington Office of Aging and Long Term Care raised the defense based on RCW 4.96.020, bother the majority. See, e.g., majority at 21 (“Selective filing[s] and amendments to complaints do not change that in this case, a government employee is being sued for acts within the scope of her employment.”). But the majority’s interpretation of the presuit notice requirement will apply to any case in which it might ultimately be

16 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0 (Stephens, J., dissenting)

The United States Supreme Court has recognized the limited impact of

indemnity provisions on the sovereign immunity analysis in Lewis, discussed above.

In rejecting the argument that an indemnification provision for a suit against tribal

employees provided the employee with immunity from suit, the Court stated that

“[t]he critical inquiry is who may be legally bound by the court’s adverse judgment,

not who will ultimately pick up the tab.” Lewis, 581 U.S. at 165. The majority

distinguishes Lewis from this case, reasoning that the local governmental entity is

statutorily bound by the judgment once it decides to defend the employee. Majority

at 27 (RCW 4.96.020(4) “requires notice to the governmental entity that will

ultimately be bound by any judgment prior to commencing the suit”). But the Court

has explained that whether a suit against a governmental employee is effectively

against the government depends on whether the government is required to pay any

adverse judgment: “Thus, while an award of damages against an official in his

personal capacity can be executed only against the official’s personal assets, a

determined that a governmental employee acted within the scope of their employment. The practical problem of this interpretation is that this key fact may not be known before suit is filed and discovery is available, and in any case, the fact may be hotly disputed. If the majority’s concern is that a governmental entity should have notice of any suits in which it might be financially responsible under vicarious liability principles, that notice concern is addressed in RCW 4.96.041. Sensibly, the statute requires notice to come directly from the employee, who is in the best position to know whether they were acting within the scope of the employment (or at least will make this claim). Moreover, a plaintiff can clearly identify when a governmental employee is acting in his or her “official capacity,” which would ensure RCW 4.96.020 provided more effective notice.

17 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0 (Stephens, J., dissenting)

plaintiff seeking to recover on a damages judgment in an official-capacity suit must

look to the government entity itself.” Graham, 473 U.S. at 166 (emphasis added).

The majority misconstrues how RCW 4.96.041 results in the local

governmental entity agreeing to pay an adverse judgment against its employee.

Washington’s indemnification scheme does not impose any requirement that the

local governmental entity pay. Instead, the entity decides in the first instance

whether it will defend an employee, and it is this decision that triggers its ultimate

duty to pay any adverse judgment, which is also a local decision. RCW 4.96.04.

This is far afield from the situation in which the State’s treasury must answer for

judgments against the local governmental entity. See, e.g., Lewis, 581 U.S. at 165

n. 4 (contrasting another case in which the “judgment ‘must be paid out of a State’s

treasury.’” (emphasis added) (quoting Hess v. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., 513

U.S. 30, 115 S. Ct. 394, 130 L. Ed. 2d 245 (1994))).

The facts before us are limited at this early stage of proceedings. Hanson’s

amended complaint sued Carmona only in her individual capacity. It contained no

allegation that Carmona was acting in her official capacity as a governmental

employee or that she was acting within her scope of employment. While Carmona

responded in her motion for summary judgment (in direct response to Hanson’s

original complaint) that she was within the scope of her employment at the time of

the car accident, neither Carmona nor the State argue that she was acting in her

18 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0 (Stephens, J., dissenting)

official governmental capacity. Clerks Papers at 12. The parties never revive the

scope of employment issue in the following pleadings. See id. at 57-62 (response to

motion for summary judgment), 79-87 (reply to response). We do not know whether

a court would ultimately determine that Carmona acted within the scope of

employment or instead was on a “frolic and detour” when the accident occurred.

Van Court v. Lodge Cab Co., 198 Wash. 530, 540-41, 89 P.2d 206 (1939) (taxicab

company was not liable for damages caused by a taxi driver while driving to get

liquor because the driver was on a “‘frolic’” and “detour”). Based on a plain reading

of the RCW 4.96.020(4) within the context of article II, section 26 of Washington’s

constitution, I would hold that the presuit notice requirement does not apply. See

Utter, 182 Wn.2d at 434-35 (this court interprets statutes consistent with the

constitution when possible). Under this reading, it is not necessary to reach

Hanson’s constitutional claim that the statute, if it applied, would violate the

separation of powers.

RCW 4.96.020(4) imposes a presuit notice requirement on claims against

local governments, including those that name individual governmental employees

acting in their official capacity. The majority’s view that the statute applies anytime

a governmental employee may be found to have acted within the scope of their

employment expands the statute’s reach beyond the legislature’s constitutional

19 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. Hanson v. Carmona, No. 99823-0 (Stephens, J., dissenting)

authority under article II, section 26. Because Hanson sued Carmona solely in her

personal capacity, the trial court correctly concluded that presuit notice was not

required. I respectfully dissent.