Opinion ID: 2543851
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Overruling Prior Precedent

Text: Finally, the City argues that to conclude that instruction 13 and WPI 140.01 are misleading would require this court to overrule Hansen. Pet. for Review at 18-19. We disagree. First, Hansen does not purport to limit a municipality's duty to only nonnegligent plaintiffs. Second, because Hansen reviewed the trial court's grant of judgment notwithstanding the verdict and ultimately held that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the city had breached its duty to the plaintiff, it is distinguishable on its facts. Hansen, 95 Wash.2d at 776-77, 632 P.2d 504. Although several Court of Appeals cases state that municipalities only owe a duty to nonnegligent users of their roadways, with the exception of Wick, these cases are factually distinguishable because the streets were found to be safe for ordinary travel. See Gunshows, 77 Wash.App. 430, 891 P.2d 46 (finding intersection safe for ordinary travel); Walker, 67 Wash.App. at 617, 837 P.2d 1023; McKee, 54 Wash.App. at 267-68, 773 P.2d 434 (finding that city had provided adequate cross-walks). Only Wick upheld a jury instruction similar to the one in this case. Wick, 86 Wash.App. at 380-82, 936 P.2d 1201. Therefore, only Wick need be directly overruled.