giving of the following instruction in Washington

1936We so held in Thomas v. Adams , 174 Wn. 118 , 24 P.2d 432 , the pertinent portion of which opinion reads as follows: "Appellants assign error upon the giving of the following instruction: "`You are instructed that if you find from a fair preponderance of the evidence in this case that plaintiffs were travelling at a lawful rate of speed and on their right side of the paved portion of the highway when the automobile in which they were riding was *Page 651 struck by the Cadillac automobile driven by the defendant, John O'Donnell, that the burden is upon said defendant, if he would be excused of

1936We so held in Thomas v. Adams , 174 Wn. 118 , 24 P.2d 432 , the pertinent portion of which opinion reads as follows: "Appellants assign error upon the giving of the following instruction: "`You are instructed that if you find from a fair preponderance of the evidence in this case that plaintiffs were travelling at a lawful rate of speed and on their right side of the paved portion of the highway when the automobile in which they were riding was *Page 651 struck by the Cadillac automobile driven by the defendant, John O'Donnell, that the burden is upon said defendant, if he would be excused of

1971Davis v. Bader, 57 Wn.2d 871 , 360 P.2d 352 (1961).

1971Davis v. Bader, 57 Wn.2d 871 , 360 P.2d 352 (1961).

1943It seems equally plain to us, speaking generally, that not only did the plaintiff’s car have the right of way on the west half of the pavement, and also on the adjoining graveled portion of the intersection as a car traveling along the highway, but also had the right of way over the defendant’s car as being on the right of defendant’s car upon its turning to the left across the course of the plaintiff’s car.” *271 In the case of Grimes v. Fraser, 178 Wash. 511 , 35 P. (2d) 88 , we applied the rule announced in the Strong case, supra, and concluded with this statement: “Whether the collision oc

1943It seems equally plain to us, speaking generally, that not only did the plaintiff’s car have the right of way on the west half of the pavement, and also on the adjoining graveled portion of the intersection as a car traveling along the highway, but also had the right of way over the defendant’s car as being on the right of defendant’s car upon its turning to the left across the course of the plaintiff’s car.” *271 In the case of Grimes v. Fraser, 178 Wash. 511 , 35 P. (2d) 88 , we applied the rule announced in the Strong case, supra, and concluded with this statement: “Whether the collision oc

1939He was therefore negligent.” In the case of Bell v. Northwest Cities Gas Co., 164 Wash. 450 , 2 P. (2d) 644 , this court approved an instruction in the following language: “ ‘You are further instructed that it is the duty of the driver of an automobile, such as the defendant was in this case, to use due care to avoid colliding with vehicles in front of him, and if you should find from the evidence that the defendant did not use due care to avoid such collision, and that such failure was the proximate cause of the collision, then I instruct you that your verdict should be for the plaintiff.’ ”

1939He was therefore negligent.” In the case of Bell v. Northwest Cities Gas Co., 164 Wash. 450 , 2 P. (2d) 644 , this court approved an instruction in the following language: “ ‘You are further instructed that it is the duty of the driver of an automobile, such as the defendant was in this case, to use due care to avoid colliding with vehicles in front of him, and if you should find from the evidence that the defendant did not use due care to avoid such collision, and that such failure was the proximate cause of the collision, then I instruct you that your verdict should be for the plaintiff.’ ”

1939He was therefore negligent.” In the case of Bell v. Northwest Cities Gas Co., 164 Wash. 450 , 2 P. (2d) 644 , this court approved an instruction in the following language: “ ‘You are further instructed that it is the duty of the driver of an automobile, such as the defendant was in this case, to use due care to avoid colliding with vehicles in front of him, and if you should find from the evidence that the defendant did not use due care to avoid such collision, and that such failure was the proximate cause of the collision, then I instruct you that your verdict should be for the plaintiff.’ ”

1939He was therefore negligent.” In the case of Bell v. Northwest Cities Gas Co., 164 Wash. 450 , 2 P. (2d) 644 , this court approved an instruction in the following language: “ ‘You are further instructed that it is the duty of the driver of an automobile, such as the defendant was in this case, to use due care to avoid colliding with vehicles in front of him, and if you should find from the evidence that the defendant did not use due care to avoid such collision, and that such failure was the proximate cause of the collision, then I instruct you that your verdict should be for the plaintiff.’ ”

1937In' the case of Ogilvie v. Hong, 175 Wash. 209 , 27 P. (2d) 141 , which was an action by the personal representatives of a pedestrian killed as the result of colliding with an automobile, plaintiff appealed from the adverse verdict of a jury, assigning error, inter alia, upon the giving of the following instruction: “You are instructed that if you find that the decedent walked into or against the side of the defendant Hong’s *17 car, then the decedent was guilty of negligence as a matter of law and your verdict must be for the defendants.” This court cited the text of 5-6 Huddy Encyclopedia of

1937In' the case of Ogilvie v. Hong, 175 Wash. 209 , 27 P. (2d) 141 , which was an action by the personal representatives of a pedestrian killed as the result of colliding with an automobile, plaintiff appealed from the adverse verdict of a jury, assigning error, inter alia, upon the giving of the following instruction: “You are instructed that if you find that the decedent walked into or against the side of the defendant Hong’s *17 car, then the decedent was guilty of negligence as a matter of law and your verdict must be for the defendants.” This court cited the text of 5-6 Huddy Encyclopedia of

1909Co., 43 Wash. 402 , 86 Pac. 652 . (4) Error is assigned to the giving of the following instruction : “You are instructed that whether or not a passenger has been guilty of negligence in alighting from a street car is a question of fact for the jury to determine, and if in this case you find from a fair preponderance of the evidence that the injury sustained by the plaintiff was due to carelessness or negligence on the part of the gripman in starting the car upon which plaintiff was a passenger before he had sufficient time to alight then your verdict must be in favor of plaintiff and against t

1909Co., 43 Wash. 402 , 86 Pac. 652 . (4) Error is assigned to the giving of the following instruction : “You are instructed that whether or not a passenger has been guilty of negligence in alighting from a street car is a question of fact for the jury to determine, and if in this case you find from a fair preponderance of the evidence that the injury sustained by the plaintiff was due to carelessness or negligence on the part of the gripman in starting the car upon which plaintiff was a passenger before he had sufficient time to alight then your verdict must be in favor of plaintiff and against t