Court Opinion

ID: 9558827
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:17:44.842761+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:36.994468
License: Public Domain

Dolliver, J.
(dissenting) — I dissent. In Bennett v. Shinoda Floral, Inc., 108 Wn.2d 386, 739 P.2d 648 (1987), the overwhelming majority of the court established the principle of law that releasors assume the risk of known uncertainties. We limited the "fairly and knowingly made” test announced in Finch v. Carlton, 84 Wn.2d 140, 524 P.2d 898 (1974) to its facts and concluded the policy favoring finality of settlements was outweighed by the policy favoring the just compensation of accident victims only when the releasor had "no knowledge [of] any personal injury”. (Italics mine.) Bennett, 108 Wn.2d at 395.
I am not persuaded this court should so easily sidestep a rule of law to accommodate facts which are no more compelling than those present in Bennett.
[I]t was the duty of the court not to vacillate, but to adhere to the law as pronounced by it, stare decisis-, for such adherence, in the main, is necessary to preserve the certainty, stability and symmetry of our jurisprudence. . . .
State ex rel. Yates-American Mach. Co. v. Superior Court, 147 Wash. 294, 298, 266 P. 134 (1928). The court should either overrule Bennett or follow the principle of law established by it.
Andersen, C.J., and Durham and Guy, JJ., concur with Dolliver, J.
Reconsideration denied April 28, 1994.