Vancouver WA Distracted Driving Accidents: RCW 46.61.672

In Washington, a driver who holds a phone, types or reads messages by hand, or watches video while driving on a public road generally violates RCW 46.61.672. In an injury claim, that violation is evidence of negligence a jury may weigh, not automatic negligence per se (RCW 5.40.050), and you generally have three years from the crash to file suit (RCW 4.16.080(2)).

Distraction is easy to suspect and harder to prove. The other driver rarely admits looking at a phone, and the strongest evidence, such as phone records, vehicle data and nearby video, can disappear if nobody asks for it early.

This article is general information, not legal advice, and creates no attorney-client relationship. The rules below come from the current Revised Code of Washington, the Washington court rules and federal law, checked in October 2026. For related reading, see our guides to PIP and UIM coverage after a Vancouver crash, the Washington car accident statute of limitations and claims after a drunk driving crash, and our personal injury practice.

Table of Contents

• ➤ What Washington’s Phone Law (RCW 46.61.672) Bans
• ➤ The Four Exceptions
• ➤ Distracted Driving Ticket Cost and Your Insurance Record
• ➤ “Dangerously Distracted” Driving (RCW 46.61.673)
• ➤ How a Violation Is Used in Your Injury Claim
• ➤ Comparative Fault When Both Drivers Made Mistakes
• ➤ Proving the Other Driver Was Distracted
• ➤ Preserving Evidence Before It Disappears
• ➤ Deadlines: Three Years, With Exceptions
• ➤ Your Own Coverage: PIP and UIM
• ➤ Frequently Asked Questions
• ➤ Talk to a BFQ Law Washington Attorney

What Washington’s Phone Law (RCW 46.61.672) Bans

Washington’s phone law took effect July 23, 2017, replacing older cell phone and texting statutes. State agencies call it the Driving Under the Influence of Electronics, or “E-DUI,” law. Under RCW 46.61.672(1), a person who uses a personal electronic device while driving a motor vehicle on a public highway commits a traffic infraction. Three definitions in subsection (6) do most of the work.

• “Use” means holding the device in either hand or both hands; using a hand or finger to compose, send, read, view, access, browse, transmit, save or retrieve email, texts, instant messages, photos or other data; or watching video. The statute expressly allows “the minimal use of a finger to activate, deactivate, or initiate a function of the device,” which is why one tap on a mounted or resting phone to answer a call or start navigation is allowed, while holding the phone or scrolling is not.
• “Driving” includes being temporarily stationary because of traffic, a traffic control device, or other momentary delays. Checking a phone at a red light on Mill Plain Boulevard is still driving. It is not driving once the car has pulled to the side of, or off, an active roadway and stopped where it can safely remain stationary.
• “Personal electronic device” means any portable device capable of wireless communication or electronic data retrieval that is not made primarily for hands-free use in a motor vehicle, including a cell phone, tablet, laptop, two-way messaging device or electronic game. Two-way radios, CB radios and amateur radio equipment are excluded.

Subsection (3) says the State preempts the field, so the same rule applies in Vancouver, Camas, Battle Ground and every other city; local governments cannot write their own phone ordinances. A crash on the Oregon side of the river is generally governed by Oregon’s traffic law instead.

The Four Exceptions

RCW 46.61.672(2) lists four exceptions to the ban:

• A driver using the device to contact emergency services.
• A transit system employee using a system for time-sensitive relay communication with the transit system’s dispatch.
• A commercial motor vehicle driver using a device within the scope of employment, if that use is permitted under federal law (49 U.S.C. Sec. 31136 as it existed on July 23, 2017). Federal rules (49 C.F.R. 392.80 and 392.82) bar texting and hand-held phone use in a commercial vehicle, and bar carriers from allowing or requiring either.
• A person operating an authorized emergency vehicle.

Distracted Driving Ticket Cost and Your Insurance Record

A violation is a traffic infraction, not a crime. The statute does not print a dollar amount; it points to the penalty schedule the Washington Supreme Court sets under RCW 46.63.110(3), and mandatory statutory assessments are added on top of the base penalty.

Situation	What the statute says	What the ticket costs (per the Washington State Patrol)
First E-DUI ticket	Penalty under RCW 46.63.110(3)	At least $145
Second or subsequent E-DUI ticket	“Two times the penalty amount” (RCW 46.61.672(4))	At least $243
E-DUI in a designated crash prevention zone	Base penalty doubled; total may not be waived, reduced or suspended (RCW 46.61.672(5))	Not published
Dangerously distracted (secondary offense)	Base penalty of $30 (RCW 46.61.673)	$108

The dollar figures in the last column come from the Washington State Patrol’s distracted driving page. The Washington Traffic Safety Commission’s April 2026 release gives slightly lower figures ($136 and $234) and describes the higher fine as applying to a second violation within five years; the statute itself says only “a second or subsequent offense.” Totals include assessments that change over time, so the notice of infraction controls.

The crash prevention zone rule was added by Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 6066 (Chapter 123, Laws of 2026), effective June 11, 2026. Under RCW 46.61.090, until January 1, 2029 these zones may be created only on listed stretches of U.S. 395 and highway 12 in southeastern Washington, so for now it does not reach Clark County.

Insurers see it. The State Patrol states plainly that cell phone violations are reported to insurance companies. The mechanism is RCW 46.52.130: a driving record abstract includes findings that an infraction was committed, and an insurer covering or considering the driver may obtain an abstract covering up to the last three years.

“Dangerously Distracted” Driving (RCW 46.61.673)

Phones are not the only distraction. RCW 46.61.673 makes it a separate traffic infraction to drive dangerously distracted, meaning engaging in any activity not related to actually operating the vehicle in a manner that interferes with safe operation. Eating, grooming, reading or reaching into the back seat can qualify if it interferes with safe driving.

It is a secondary offense: an officer may enforce it only when the driver has already been detained for a suspected violation of a separate traffic infraction or local ordinance. The base penalty is $30, which goes to a distracted driving prevention account. For an injury claim, the label matters less than the conduct: a driver who was eating instead of watching the road may never be ticketed, but the inattention can still be proved as negligence.

How a Violation Is Used in Your Injury Claim

A traffic ticket and an injury claim are separate proceedings: the infraction is between the driver and the State, while your claim is a civil case for damages. The link between them is RCW 5.40.050, which says a breach of a duty imposed by statute, ordinance or administrative rule “shall not be considered negligence per se, but may be considered by the trier of fact as evidence of negligence.”

In plain terms, proof that the other driver was texting does not automatically win the liability question, but the jury may consider it, together with everything else, in deciding whether the driver acted as a reasonably careful driver would. You still have to show the distraction contributed to the crash and caused your injuries.

Compare drunk driving. The same statute lists four exceptions that are negligence per se, and one is driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug. The Legislature did not add phone use to that list, so an “E-DUI” is not treated like a DUI in a civil case. Our guide to drunk driving crash claims covers that side.

You also do not need a ticket. Officers often never see the phone, and the civil case can rest on records, witnesses and admissions.

Comparative Fault When Both Drivers Made Mistakes

Insurers often argue the injured person was partly at fault, for example by speeding or stopping suddenly. Washington uses pure comparative fault. Under RCW 4.22.005, any contributory fault chargeable to you diminishes proportionately the compensatory damages awarded, “but does not bar recovery.” There is no 50 or 51 percent cutoff.

Your share of fault	Effect on $100,000 of damages (illustration)
0%	$100,000
20%	$80,000
60%	$40,000

When more than one party contributed, RCW 4.22.070 has the trier of fact assign a percentage to every at-fault entity, and liability is generally several only, meaning each defendant pays its own share. Two exceptions matter in distracted driving cases. A party is responsible for the fault of a person acting as its agent or servant, which is why an employer can answer for a delivery driver who was on the phone for work. And if you are found not at fault, the defendants against whom judgment is entered are jointly and severally liable for the sum of their shares.

Proving the Other Driver Was Distracted

Distraction is usually proved by combining several kinds of evidence.

The collision report. Under RCW 46.52.030, the State Patrol’s report form must record whether any driver was distracted, with options that include operating a handheld electronic telecommunication device, operating a hands-free wireless device, other electronic devices, eating or drinking, grooming, and interacting with passengers or objects. If no officer investigates, each driver in an injury crash must file a written report within four days. Under RCW 46.52.080, required accident reports cannot themselves be used as evidence at trial, but the officer’s factual data and witness statements are available to an injured person and their attorney or insurer under RCW 46.52.083. The report’s real value is its leads: the officer’s observations and witnesses who can testify.

Phone records. Once a lawsuit is filed, Washington’s discovery rules let a party request documents and electronically stored information from the other side (CR 34) and subpoena records from non-parties such as a wireless carrier (CR 45). There is a federal limit. Under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. 2702, a carrier generally may not divulge the contents of messages, but it may disclose non-content records about a customer to a person other than a government entity. In practice, timestamped usage records are the usual target, and requests are typically narrowed to a window around the crash because discovery is limited to what is relevant.

Other evidence often fills the gaps:

• Witnesses and passengers who saw the driver looking down or holding a phone.
• Video from businesses, traffic cameras, dash cameras, doorbells or a city bus.
• Vehicle data showing speed and braking just before impact; no braking before a rear-end collision suggests inattention.
• Employer and fleet records, such as dispatch app logs, telematics and a commercial carrier’s phone-use policy.
• Statements the driver made at the scene, such as “I only looked away for a second.”

Preserving Evidence Before It Disappears

Carriers, businesses and fleets keep records and video only for limited periods that vary by company, and vehicles get repaired or scrapped. Steps that help:

• Write down what you saw, such as a phone in hand or no brake lights, the same day.
• Get names and numbers of witnesses, and photograph the scene, both vehicles and any nearby cameras.
• Exchange the information required by RCW 46.52.020: name, address, insurance company, policy number and license plate number, and ask to see the other driver’s license.
• Request the collision report and identify the reporting agency, such as the Vancouver Police Department, the Clark County Sheriff’s Office or the State Patrol.
• Have a written preservation request sent promptly to the other driver, their insurer, any employer, and businesses with cameras, asking them to keep phones, records, video and vehicle data.
• Do not give a recorded statement to the other driver’s insurer before you understand the claim.

For the general sequence after a collision, see our guide to steps after a Vancouver crash.

Deadlines: Three Years, With Exceptions

RCW 4.16.080(2) requires an action for “any other injury to the person or rights of another” to be commenced within three years, the same rule that covers injury to personal property such as your car. Most distracted driving injury claims fall under it. Several rules can change the math:

Situation	Rule
Adult injured in a crash	Generally 3 years to commence suit (RCW 4.16.080(2)); a complaint filed in time stops the clock only if at least one defendant is served (or service by publication begins) within 90 days of filing (RCW 4.16.170)
Injured person under 18	Time while under 18 is not counted (RCW 4.16.190)
Injured person legally incompetent	Time of incapacity, as determined under chapter 11.130 RCW, is not counted (RCW 4.16.190)
Distracted driver was on the job for a city, county, transit agency or other local government (RCW 4.96.020), or for the State (RCW 4.92.110)	A claim must first be presented within the limitations period, and suit cannot be filed until 60 calendar days later; the limitations period is tolled during those 60 days

Our statute of limitations timeline covers other deadlines in more detail.

Your Own Coverage: PIP and UIM

While fault is being sorted out, your own policy may help. Washington auto insurers must offer personal injury protection (PIP), which pays benefits such as medical expenses and lost income under your own policy; you generally have it unless a named insured rejected it in writing (RCW 48.22.085). Underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage, required to be included unless rejected in writing under RCW 48.22.030, can step in when the distracted driver’s liability limits are too low, or the driver was uninsured or fled. Our PIP and UIM guide explains how the two work together.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I use GPS on my phone while driving in Washington? Only hands-free. Holding the phone is “use” under RCW 46.61.672, but a mounted phone with minimal use of a finger to activate or initiate a function is allowed. Setting the route before you drive is the safe course.

The other driver was not ticketed. Can I still prove distraction? Yes. Phone records, witnesses, video and vehicle data can establish distraction without a ticket, and the jury decides negligence.

Can I get the other driver’s text messages? Not usually from the carrier, which federal law generally bars from disclosing message contents. Usage records with timestamps are more commonly obtained, and contents may be sought from the driver through discovery, subject to the court’s limits.

Talk to a BFQ Law Washington Attorney

Most distracted driving claims turn on a few questions: what evidence shows the driver’s attention was elsewhere, whether it was preserved in time, how fault is divided, and which policies apply. Some of those depend on acting within weeks, not years.

Read about our personal injury practice, our Vancouver personal injury page and our attorneys and legal team, or see our guides to Washington car accident claims, fault and deadlines and brain injury claims after a crash. Reach us through our contact page. Nothing here promises an outcome, and every case depends on its own facts.