Mʏᴇʀs & Cᴏᴍᴘᴀɴʏ
The "Right of Way" isn't Black and White
One of the first rules you learn is the driver on the right has the right of way.
Here's the rule:
RCW 46.61.180(1) provides that when two vehicles approach or enter an intersection from different roads the driver on the left must yield to the driver on the right.
For the rule to apply, the vehicles have to get to the intersection at the same time. It isn’t simply “the vehicles on the right always wins.”
And even if the vehicles get to the intersection at the same time, it still isn't an all or nothing proposition.
The driver on the right is the “favored driver” and the driver on the left as the “disfavored driver.”
But having the right of way does not give the favored driver a license to run into the disfavored driver. The Washington Supreme Court has written over and over that the "right of way" rule is not "absolute." It doesn't immunize the favored driver. Excessive speed, failure to keep a proper lookout, and failure to slow or stop once danger becomes apparent can constitute negligence.
We represented a motorcycle rider who was to the left of the car that hit him.
Even though our client did not have the "right of way" in the traditional sense, we emphasized that the favorable driver acted unreasonably by trying to beat the motorcycle through the intersection, emphasized his injuries and ended up setting the case for the driver's policy limits.
It would be easy for judges and legislators to make bright line rules. But bright line rules about uncontrolled intersections would really put rule-making convenience and "certainty" over the realities of driving.
Two claps for Washington recognizing that very little is absolute when you pull up to an uncontrolled intersection.