Court Opinion

ID: 9537804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:24:46.938475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:03.319551
License: Public Domain

Foster, J.
(concurring in the result) — I concur in the result because there is no evidence to support the finding that the disfavored driver was deceived. This clearly appears in the court’s opinion in which it is said “The basic facts are not in dispute,” but I cannot agree with the court’s statement that the only question is “whether the evidence clearly preponderates against the findings of fact,” which implies that this court possesses power to retry factual disputes. It does not. If the court persists in retrying factual disputes, lawyers will be justified in appealing cases which *124involve nothing more, although the legislature in 1957 repealed the act of 1893 which authorized a trial de novo upon factual disputes. Laws of 1957, chapter 7, § 10 (27), p. 25, 26. My views were stated more fully in my dissent in Crofton v. Bargreen, 53 Wn. (2d) 243, 254, 332 P. (2d) 1081.
Weaver, C. J., concurs with Foster, J.