Court Opinion

ID: 9794498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:07:04.866333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:16:55.345620
License: Public Domain

Rosellini, C. J.
The respondent petitioned for rehearing, contending that the court had disregarded the doctrine *6of “law of the case” and that this doctrine dictated that the judgment on the second trial should be affirmed. The petition was granted.
In reversing the judgment of the trial court in our en banc opinion, ante p. 1, 402 P.2d 356, we overruled the case of Greene v. Rothschild, 60 Wn.2d 508, 374 P.2d 566 (1962), which was an earlier appeal of the same case, insofar as it impliedly held that the exoneration of an agent, for whose negligence it is sought to hold his principal liable, does not exonerate the principal. There was no direct holding to this effect, and the question was not ’discussed in the earlier opinion, but it was inherent in the disposition made of the case. As we said in our opinion on the second appeal, this disposition was clearly erroneous and resulted in patent injustice to the appellant.
It is the contention of the respondent, as we understand it, that the court does not have jurisdiction or “power” to overrule its former decision in the case. The respondent correctly maintains that this court has many times said that the rulings on the first appeal become the law of the case, and that questions decided by the court on the first appeal will not again be reviewed by this court; and that this court has even gone so far as to say that it cannot review them. Cases containing language of the latter import are Hammock v. Tacoma, 44 Wash. 623, 87 Pac. 924 (1906); Starr v. Long Jim, 59 Wash. 190, 109 Pac. 810 (1910); Peterson v. Denny-Renton Clay & Coal Co., 100 Wash. 613, 171 Pac. 543 (1918); McGill v. Baker, 157 Wash. 414, 288 Pac. 1062 (1930); Stusser v. Gottstein, 187 Wash. 660, 61 P.2d 149 (1936); Miller v. Sisters of St. Francis, 5 Wn.2d 204, 105 P.2d 32 (1940); Davis v. Davis, 16 Wn.2d 607, 134 P.2d 467 (1943). Insofar as the language in these cases implies that the court does not have the power to overrule its prior decisions, they are in error; and to that extent, we hereby exercise that power and overrule them.
The rules pertaining to “law of the case” which this court and others have adopted and followed in proper cases are court made rules. The doctrine is a common law doctrine, *7and some courts have stated it more broadly and applied it more rigorously than others.
A recent statement of the doctrine, as expressed in this jurisdiction, is contained in Adamson v. Traylor, 66 Wn.2d 338, 402 P.2d 499, written by the author of this opinion. We said there:
It is also the rule that questions determined on appeal, or which might have been determined had they been presented,[1] will not again be considered on a subsequent appeal if there is no substantial change in the evidence at a second determination of the cause. Clark v. Fowler, 61 Wn.2d 211, 377 P.2d 998. The Supreme Court is bound by its decision on the first appeal until such time as it might be authoritatively overruled. Kennett v. Yates, 45 Wn.2d 35, 272 P.2d 122.
It will be seen that in the same breath that the court proclaims it is bound by the former decision, it recognizes its power to overrule it. Our research has disclosed only one case in which this court has expressly overruled a prior decision in the same case. In that case, Shell Oil Co. v. Henry, 175 Wash. 298, 27 P.2d 582 (1933), we held that the law laid down on the first appeal had been overruled by subsequent cases applying a different rule of law to substantially the same facts.
The power of this court to overrule its decision on a former appeal is recognized also in Thornton v. Eneroth, 180 Wash. 250, 39 P.2d 379 (1934), (wherein the court did in fact review its former decision, for the opinion states, “The majority are not disposed to overrule or recede from the former decision.”); Baxter v. Ford Motor Co., 179 Wash. 123, 35 P.2d 1090 (1934), (wherein this court said, “At least, a majority of the court still consider the former decision as in accord with the principles of common law, in so far as this appellant is concerned, are content therewith, and are not disposed to overrule it.”), and Bunn v. Bates, 36 Wn.2d 100, 216 P.2d 741 (1950), (wherein this language is found:
*8“Having read the testimony adduced in both hearings, we will further say that we do not recede from any of the legal or factual statements in the opinion in 31 Wn. (2d) 315, but, by reference, we restate and reaffirm them in this opinion.”).
Thus it is clear that this court does have the power to review and overrule its prior decisions, and the respondent has cited no constitutional provision denying it that power.
Under the doctrine of stare decisis, the court is not obliged to perpetuate its own errors. This doctrine means that the rule laid down in any particular case is applicable to another case involving identical or substantially similar facts. Floyd v. Department of Labor and Indus., 44 Wn.2d 560, 269 P.2d 563 (1954). But the doctrine will not be applied in cases in which to do so would perpetuate error and in which no property rights would be affected by the overruling of the prior decision. Hutton v. Martin, 41 Wn.2d 780, 252 P.2d 581 (1953). We see no reason why this principle should not apply where the allegedly erroneous decision is one which was rendered on a prior appeal of the same case. And in fact it is the increasingly accepted view that the doctrine of “law of the case” is a discretionary rule, which should not be applied where it would result in manifest injustice. This tendency is reported in annotations in 1 A.L.R. 1267, 8 A.L.R. 1033, 67 A.L.R. 1390, and 87 A.L.R.2d 275. In this last annotation, it is noted that Washington is among those jurisdictions which have acknowledged that the doctrine is not inflexible, and this recognition is expressed in the early case of Seattle v. Northern Pac. Ry., 63 Wash. 129, 114 Pac. 1038 (1911). Summarizing the approach which this tendency represents, the writer of the annotation, at 282, says:
Under this view the doctrine of the law of the case, as applied to appellate courts on successive appeals, is a mere rule of practice, but not a limitation on the courts’ power. It is, however, recognized that an appellate court’s power to depart from its own ruling on a former appeal may be invoked not as a matter of right, but of grace and discretion, and should be exercised only sparingly or rarely, and for cogent reasons, after careful consideration of the situation involved in individual cases, or, more *9specifically, in a clear case under extraordinary or exceptional circumstances, in the interest of justice.
Such law review comments as our research has uncovered are critical of courts which apply the doctrine to perpetuate error. These are 62 Harv. L. Rev. 286 (the writer of this comment believed that the doctrine causes more work than it saves and should be supplanted by some less cumbersome doctrine or technique); 5 Stan. L. Rev. 751 (dealing particularly with California problems, which are complicated by the fact that that jurisdiction has intermediate appellate courts) and 28 Wash. L. Rev. 137. As the author of the comment in the Washington Law Review observed, the United States Supreme Court has pointed out, in United States v. United States Smelting Refining & Mining Co., 339 U.S. 186, 94 L. Ed. 750, 70 Sup. Ct. 537 (1950), that whereas the doctrine of res judicata is a uniform rule, the “law of the case” is only a discretionary rule of practice.
It has also been held, quite logically, it would seem, that when a court makes two rulings which are inconsistent, neither is the law of the case. Gage v. Downey, 94 Cal. 241, 29 Pac. 635 (1892); In re Walker’s Estate, 180 Cal. 478, 181 Pac. 792 (1919). This is what occurred on the first appeal of the case before us now. However, we do not rest our decision on that rationale.
It is true that we have often said that a decision rendered on a prior appeal, whether “right or wrong,” becomes the law of the case. We have examined all such cases which have been disclosed by our research. They are Menasha Wooden Ware Co. v. Nelson, 53 Wash. 160, 101 Pac. 720 (1909); McGill v. Baker, 157 Wash. 414, 288 Pac. 1062 (1930); Hammock v. Tacoma, 44 Wash. 623, 87 Pac. 924 (1906); Cannon v. Seattle Title Trust Co., 145 Wash. 691, 261 Pac. 642 (1927); and Elsom v. Tefft, 148 Wash. 195, 268 Pac. 177 (1928). In none of these cases does it appear that the prior ruling was erroneous, and the expression “right or wrong” was therefore merely dictum.
Counsel have not called to our attention any case in which this court has recognized that a prior decision in the same *10case was clearly erroneous and yet has refused to overrule it, feeling restrained by the doctrine of “law of the case,” and none has come to light in the course of our research.
Under the doctrine of “law of the case,” as applied in this jurisdiction, the parties, the trial court, and this court are bound by the holdings of the court on a prior appeal until such time as they are “authoritatively overruled.” Adamson v. Traylor, supra; Baxter v. Ford Motor Co., supra. Such a holding should be overruled if it lays down or tacitly applies a rule of law which is clearly erroneous, and if to apply the doctrine would work a manifest injustice to one party, whereas no corresponding injustice would result to the other party if the erroneous decision should be set aside. This is such a case.
The justifications for the doctrine were stated in Seattle v. Northern Pac. Ry., supra, wherein this court also stated that the doctrine is a flexible one and not binding on this court. It is, the opinion declares, “fair to the litigants and the trial court, conducive to orderly procedure, and with all sound judicial policy.”
When the application of the doctrine would result in unfairness to the litigants and the perpetuation of judicial error, two of these justifications vanish. As for the third, let it be said that it was not the fault of the appellant that the question of the propriety of a remand was not considered in the first opinion. That question was earnestly argued in a petition for rehearing. Thus it cannot be said that the appellant waived its objection to the court’s decision.
We are convinced that the justice of this case requires a reversal of the decision on the first appeal, insofar as it ordered a new trial.
A word should be said for another contention of the respondent, which is that this court does not have jurisdiction inasmuch as it lost jurisdiction when the remittitur went down after the first appeal. We may concede that the court loses jurisdiction, except for certain purposes (see Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Henneford, 199 Wash. 462, 92 P.2d 214 (1939)) when the remittitur goes down; how*11ever, when another appeal is taken, it regains jurisdiction. Consequently, this argument is without merit.
We adhere to the opinion previously filed herein.
Hill, Donworth, Finley, Weaver, Hunter, Hamilton, and Hale, JJ., and Barnett, J. Pro Term., concur.
July 28, 1966. Petition for rehearing denied.

On this phase oí the doctrine, see Columbia Steel Co. v. State, 34 Wn.2d 700, 209 P.2d 482 (1949), where this court reviewed questions which might have been presented on the first appeal.