Court Opinion

ID: 9618975
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:20:13.403334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:34.605368
License: Public Domain

Pearson, J.
(concurring)—I concur in the opinion of the court but feel compelled to comment on one facet of this case which the opinion does not mention and which presents a substantial impediment to the course of action which the result of the opinion dictates.
The petitioners are both indigents. In order to proceed against the state in Thurston County pursuant to RCW 4.92.010 they are required to
file a surety bond executed by the plaintiff and a surety company authorized to do business in the state of Washington to the effect that such plaintiff will indemnify the state against all costs that may accrue in such action, and will pay to the clerk of said court all costs in case the plaintiff shall fail to prosecute his action or to obtain a judgment against the state: . . .
Under such a requirement the petitioners, because of indigency, may be precluded from filing their claim under RCW 4.92.010, and thus be prohibited from exercising the privilege afforded to those with the financial means needed to obtain a surety bond.
It is my opinion that denial of access to the courts under RCW 4.92.010 because of indigency would be a violation of the equal protection of laws provision of our state and federal constitutions, and, accordingly, upon a proper showing of indigency, the surety bond requirement must be waived. See O’Connor v. Matzdorff, 76 Wn.2d 589, 458 P.2d 154 (1969) where the court was held to have inherent power to waive court costs because of indigency.