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

Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.180 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) When two vehicles approach or enter an intersection from different highways at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on the right.
(2) The right-of-way rule declared in subsection (1) of this section is modified at arterial highways and otherwise as stated in this chapter.
(3)(a) When the vehicle on the right approaching the intersection is a vulnerable user of a public way, a driver of a motor vehicle found to be in violation of this section must be assessed an additional fine equal to the base penalty assessed under RCW 46.63.110(3). This fine may not be waived, reduced, or suspended, unless the court finds the offender to be indigent, and is not subject to the additional fees and assessments that the base penalty for this violation is subject to under RCW 2.68.040, 3.62.090, and 46.63.110.
(b) For the purposes of this section, "vulnerable user of a public way" has the same meaning as provided in RCW 46.61.5259.
(4) The additional fine imposed under subsection (3) of this section must be deposited into the vulnerable roadway user education account created in RCW 46.61.145.
[ 2023 c 471 s 6; 2019 c 403 s 5; 1975 c 62 s 26; 1965 ex.s. c 155 s 28.]

Notes:

Rules of court: Monetary penalty schedule—IRLJ 6.2.
Effective date—2023 c 471: See note following RCW 46.61.5259.
Finding—Intent—Effective date—2019 c 403: See notes following RCW 46.04.071.
Severability—1975 c 62: See note following RCW 36.75.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1967–2021 · leading case: Hough v. Ballard, 31 P.3d 6 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hough v. Ballard, 31 P.3d 6 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “FAVORED DRIVER RCW 46.61.180, governing vehicles approaching an intersection, provides: (1) When two vehicles approach or enter an intersection from different highways at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the…”
Hough v. Ballard, 108 Wash. App. 272 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “Favored Driver RCW 46.61.180, governing vehicles approaching an intersection, provides: (1) When two vehicles approach or enter an intersection from different highways at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the…”
Whitchurch v. McBride, 818 P.2d 622 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “, will be sufficient to support a finding that the accident would not have occurred *276 but for the defendant's negligent conduct) only if it supports a reasonable inference as to approximately where the favored driver was when, in the exercise of reasonable care, he or she…”
Kitt v. Yakima Cnty., 611 P.2d 1234 (Wash. 1980). “RCW 46.61.180(1). The view of both drivers was obstructed by orchards at the crossing.”
Nelson v. Blake, 434 P.2d 595 (Wash. 1967). · cites it 2× “150 (now RCW 46.61.180). 3 The disfavored driver’s negligence in failing to yield the right of way is clear, and we are not concerned on this appeal with any attempt on his part to recover damages.”
Brown v. Derry, 518 P.2d 251 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974). “, RCW 46.61.180, et seq., dealing with automobile driver rights-of-way, and Martin v.”
Radosevich v. Cnty. Commissioners, 476 P.2d 705 (Wash. Ct. App. 1970). “110) would be inapplicable, and under RCW 46.61.180 plaintiffs’ vehicle would have the right-of-way since it was approaching the Riley vehicle from the right.”
Maxwell v. Piper, 963 P.2d 941 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 3× “As part of this court’s backlog reduction program, we initially issued a short unpublished opinion, without oral argument, affirming the trial court.”
Fovargue v. Ramseyer, 439 P.2d 966 (Wash. 1968). “It has been superseded by RCW 46.61.180, which contains the same language insofar as it pertains to the duty of the operator.”
Henderson v. Bobst, 497 P.2d 957 (Wash. Ct. App. 1972). “The trial court found that even though plaintiff was the favored driver and entitled to the right-of-way by virtue of *977 RCW 46.61.180, he was guilty of contributory negligence for failing to keep a proper lookout and proceeding into the intersection without sufficient caution.”
Madelynn M. Tapken v. Spokane Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 46.61.180; .190. All drivers are required to drive at a speed that is "reasonable and prudent under the conditions.”
Geiger v. United States (W.D. Wash. 2021). “When, as in this case, Defendant’s vehicle and Plaintiff’s vehicle were approaching (Plaintiff) or entering (Defendant) the intersection at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left (Defendant) shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on the right…”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.180(1) — 7 cases
Hough v. Ballard, 31 P.3d 6 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “FAVORED DRIVER RCW 46.61.180, governing vehicles approaching an intersection, provides: (1) When two vehicles approach or enter an intersection from different highways at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the…”
Hough v. Ballard, 108 Wash. App. 272 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “Favored Driver RCW 46.61.180, governing vehicles approaching an intersection, provides: (1) When two vehicles approach or enter an intersection from different highways at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the…”
Whitchurch v. McBride, 818 P.2d 622 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “, will be sufficient to support a finding that the accident would not have occurred *276 but for the defendant's negligent conduct) only if it supports a reasonable inference as to approximately where the favored driver was when, in the exercise of reasonable care, he or she…”
Kitt v. Yakima Cnty., 611 P.2d 1234 (Wash. 1980). “RCW 46.61.180(1). The view of both drivers was obstructed by orchards at the crossing.”
Maxwell v. Piper, 963 P.2d 941 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “As part of this court’s backlog reduction program, we initially issued a short unpublished opinion, without oral argument, affirming the trial court.”
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.