Court Opinion

ID: 9553190
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:24:52.895661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:30:13.294483
License: Public Domain

Schwellenbach, J.
(concurring)—I agree that the de-
fense of assumption of risk should not have been submitted to the jury. However, I believe that, under the evidence, it was proper for the court to give instruction No. 26:
“You are instructed that the Laws of the State of Washington contain, the following provision relative to one motor vehicle following another on a public highway:
“ ‘It shall be unlawful for the operator of any motor vehicle to follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of the vehicles and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway.’
“In this connection you are instructed that an operator of a motor vehicle has the right to follow another motor vehicle at a reasonable and safe distance. However, the operator of a motor vehicle must govern his speed and maintain a reasonably safe distance so as to provide for the contingency of the motor vehicle in front suddenly stopping, maintaining a proper lookout for the motor vehicle immediately preceding him, so that he can stop without a collision, or can turn out sufficiently to pass the motor vehicle in front without going across the street or highway in the way of traffic approaching from the opposite direction.
“A violation of the foregoing statutory provision is what is known in law as ‘negligence per' se’; that is, the breach or violation of the statute itself is negligence. If such violation proximately contributes to such accident or damage, such person cannot recover.”
I do not believe that the statute was enacted for the sole purpose of preventing a collision with any vehicle or vehicles ahead of the offending vehicle. The question is, did *97the driver, under all of the circumstances confronting him, operate his vehicle in a careful and prudent manner.
Donworth, J., concurs with Schwellenbach, J.