Wash. Rev. Code » Title 46 · Chapter 46.61
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.115 (2026)

When overtaking on the right is permitted

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle only under the following conditions:
(a) When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn;
(b) Upon a roadway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles moving lawfully in the direction being traveled by the overtaking vehicle.
(2) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right only under conditions permitting such movement in safety. Such movement shall not be made by driving off the roadway.
[ 1975 c 62 s 23; 1965 ex.s. c 155 s 18.]

Notes:

Rules of court: Monetary penalty schedule—IRLJ 6.2.
Severability—1975 c 62: See note following RCW 36.75.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1969–2019 · leading case: Chapman v. Claxton, 497 P.2d 192 (Wash. Ct. App. 1972).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Chapman v. Claxton, 497 P.2d 192 (Wash. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 2× “RCW 46.61.115(1) (b) and (2). Defendant relies upon Harris v.”
Enslow v. Helmcke, 611 P.2d 1338 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). “Further, RCW 46.61.115 states: (1) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle only under the following conditions: (a) When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn; (b) Upon a roadway with unobstructed pavement of…”
Watts v. Dietrich, 460 P.2d 298 (Wash. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 2× “RCW 46.61.115, .140. With respect to the clear-stretch-of-road doctrine the court, after a detailed review of intersection cases, in Tobias v.”
Waller v. Mann (W.D. Wash. 2019). · cites it 3× “RCW 46.61.115 also lays 15 out two sets of conditions in which overtaking on the right is permitted, and states that “[t]he 16 driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right only under conditions 17 permitting such movement in safety.”
White v. Solaegui, 815 P.2d 784 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 3× “White asserts that it is necessary to construe the phrase "moving lawfully" in RCW 46.61.115 in light of RCW 46.61.140. 2 However, RCW 46.”
Fuller v. Angel, 485 P.2d 620 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971). “It is true that if respondent did have the oppor *41 tunity to return to his original lane at the time he saw appellants’ parked vehicle, he would have had a duty to do so.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.115(1) — 1 case
Chapman v. Claxton, 497 P.2d 192 (Wash. Ct. App. 1972). “RCW 46.61.115(1) (b) and (2). Defendant relies upon Harris v.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.115(1)(b) — 2 cases
Chapman v. Claxton, 497 P.2d 192 (Wash. Ct. App. 1972). “RCW 46.61.115(1) (b) and (2). Defendant relies upon Harris v.”
White v. Solaegui, 815 P.2d 784 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “White asserts that it is necessary to construe the phrase "moving lawfully" in RCW 46.61.115 in light of RCW 46.61.140. 2 However, RCW 46.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.115(2) — 1 case
Fuller v. Angel, 485 P.2d 620 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971). “It is true that if respondent did have the oppor *41 tunity to return to his original lane at the time he saw appellants’ parked vehicle, he would have had a duty to do so.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.