Wash. Rev. Code § 70.84.040

Precautions for drivers of motor vehicles approaching a wheelchair user or pedestrian who is using a white cane, dog guide, or service animal

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The driver of a vehicle approaching a totally or partially blind pedestrian who is carrying a cane predominantly white in color (with or without a red tip), a totally or partially blind or hearing impaired pedestrian using a dog guide, a person with physical disabilities using a service animal, or a person with a disability using a wheelchair or a power wheelchair as defined in RCW 46.04.415 shall take all necessary precautions to avoid injury to such pedestrian or wheelchair user. Any driver who fails to take such precaution shall be liable in damages for any injury caused such pedestrian or wheelchair user. It shall be unlawful for the operator of any vehicle to drive into or upon any crosswalk while there is on such crosswalk such pedestrian or wheelchair user crossing or attempting to cross the roadway, if such pedestrian or wheelchair user is using a white cane, using a dog guide, using a service animal, or using a wheelchair or a power wheelchair as defined in RCW 46.04.415. The failure of any such pedestrian or wheelchair user so to signal shall not deprive him or her of the right-of-way accorded him or her by other laws.

[ 2010 c 184 s 1; 1997 c 271 s 20; 1985 c 90 s 3; 1980 c 109 s 4; 1971 ex.s. c 77 s 1; 1969 c 141 s 4.]

Notes:

Effective date—2010 c 184: "This act takes effect August 1, 2010." [ 2010 c 184 s 2.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1994–2019 · leading case: Wright v. Engum

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wright v. Engum (1994) wash · cites it 19× “*347 Plaintiff brought suit for negligence and also claimed that Defendants were strictly liable under the State White Cane Law, RCW 70.84.040. Defendants alleged comparative negligence on the part of the Plaintiff and also argued that the statute did not create strict liability.”

Floeting v. Grp. Health Coop. (2019) wash · cites it 6× “In Wright, we rejected the plaintiffs argument to impose strict liability relating to our state's "White Cane Law," RCW 70.84.040. The plaintiff argued that the language stating a driver who fails to take "all necessary precautions to avoid injury" "shall be liable in damages…”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 70.84.040(1985) — 1 case

Floeting v. Grp. Health Coop. (2019) wash “In Wright, we rejected the plaintiffs argument to impose strict liability relating to our state's "White Cane Law," RCW 70.84.040. The plaintiff argued that the language stating a driver who fails to take "all necessary precautions to avoid injury" "shall be liable in damages…”

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.