Narrative Opinion Summary
In the case of Felder v. City of Tacoma, the Washington Supreme Court examined a rear-end collision involving the plaintiffs and a city bus driven by a defendant. The plaintiffs alleged negligence per se by the bus driver, invoking RCW 46.60.080, which mandates maintaining a safe following distance. The defendants contended that the plaintiffs' sudden stop warranted a jury's consideration of contributory negligence. The court affirmed the jury's verdict for the defendants, ruling that the plaintiffs' contributory negligence was justly considered by the jury. The plaintiffs' request for a 'last clear chance' jury instruction was denied, as the bus driver could not have avoided the collision upon realizing the plaintiffs' peril. Additionally, the adequacy of the plaintiffs' stop signal was left to the jury, with the court upholding related instructions. The case was remanded for a new trial due to other procedural concerns, reversing the initial judgment. The court's analysis underscored the duties of drivers at intersections and the nuances in assessing negligence and contributory negligence under Washington law.
Legal Issues Addressed
Adequacy of Signal for Stopping or Slowingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The adequacy of the signal given by the plaintiff was deemed a factual question for the jury, considering Washington laws requiring signaling before stopping or reducing speed.
Reasoning: RCW 46.60.120 mandates that stop or turn signals be communicated via hand signals or mechanical devices.
Contributory Negligence at Traffic Signalssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found sufficient evidence to submit the issue of contributory negligence to the jury, based on the plaintiff's stop at a flashing yellow light, which the defendants argued was abrupt.
Reasoning: The court found sufficient evidence of contributory negligence on Felder's part and affirmed the trial court’s decision to submit this issue to the jury.
Jury Instructions on Contributory Negligence and Signalingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the jury instruction on contributory negligence and signaling, despite plaintiffs' objections, directing the jury to assess the adequacy of the stop signal based on evidence.
Reasoning: The court clarified that Mr. Felder's negligence was appropriately a jury issue. RCW 46.60.120 mandates that stop or turn signals be communicated via hand signals or mechanical devices.
Last Clear Chance Doctrine in Washingtonsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled the last clear chance doctrine inapplicable because the bus driver did not perceive the plaintiff's peril until it was too late to avoid the collision.
Reasoning: The evidence indicated that the bus driver did not perceive Felder's peril until it was too late to avoid the impact, which negated the applicability of the first phase of the last clear chance doctrine.
Negligence of Following Driver under RCW 46.60.080subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the principle that a following driver must maintain a reasonable distance to avoid collisions, and a collision typically implies negligence on part of the following driver, unless unusual circumstances exist.
Reasoning: Washington law (RCW 46.60.080) states that drivers must maintain a reasonable distance behind other vehicles, and the following driver has the primary duty to avoid collisions.