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

Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.445 (2026)

Due care required

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Compliance with speed requirements of this chapter under the circumstances hereinabove set forth shall not relieve the operator of any vehicle from the further exercise of due care and caution as further circumstances shall require.
[ 1961 c 12 s 46.48.025. Prior: 1951 c 28 s 11; 1949 c 196 s 6, part; 1947 c 200 s 8, part; 1937 c 189 s 64, part; Rem. Supp. 1949 s 6360-64, part; 1927 c 309 s 3, part; 1923 c 181 s 6, part; 1921 c 96 s 27, part; 1917 c 155 s 16, part; 1915 c 142 s 24, part; RRS s 6362-3, part; 1909 c 249 s 279, part; Rem. & Bal. 2531, part. Formerly RCW 46.48.025.]

Notes:

Duty to use due care: RCW 46.61.400(1).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1970–2025 · 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× “400(1) and RCW 46.61.445. Rather, he continued travelling 35 to 40 miles per hour through the intersection until he collided with Ballard.”
Hough v. Ballard, 108 Wash. App. 272 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “400(1) and RCW 46.61.445. Rather, he continued traveling 35 to 40 miles per hour through the intersection until he collided with Ballard.”
State v. MaCrae, 676 P.2d 463 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 12× “The trooper concluded that petitioner "should have been going slower" and cited him for failure to use due care, RCW 46.61.445. At his district court hearing on the citation, petitioner moved for dismissal on the grounds that the statute enumerated no citable offense and/or was…”
Kiemele v. Bryan, 476 P.2d 141 (Wash. Ct. App. 1970). “4 This instruction is based upon RCW 46.61.445. 5 Defendant’s testimony of a 25 miles per hour speed was corroborated by a witness driving immediately behind him, which made such a finding likely.”
Radosevich v. Cnty. Commissioners, 476 P.2d 705 (Wash. Ct. App. 1970). “180 plaintiffs’ vehicle would have the right-of-way since it was approaching the Riley vehicle from the right.”
Chase L. McClurg v. Paul David Winters, et ux (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “Failing to exercise due care and caution, in violation of RCW 46.61.445; f. Operating a motor vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property, in violation of RCW 46.”
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.