 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Molvik v. Bihler10/10/2005
avored driver.' The disfavored driver, Patricia Channel, entered the same intersection on a red light, yet claimed that she was entitled to recover damages because Mills could have avoided hitting her but for Mill's excessive speed. According to another division of this court, the question was whether and when a favored driver's speed should be deemed a 'proximate cause' of a collision. The question 'supposes a favored driver who has the right of way but is speeding; a disfavored driver . . . who invades the favored driver's right of way; and an ensuing collision.' After extensive discussion of the authorities, the court held that if excessive speed does no more than bring the favored driver and disfavored driver together to the same location at the same time, the excessive speed is remote rather than 'proximate' and causation is not established.
Alleged Improper Use of Two Way Left Turn Lane
Molvik first argues that Bihler was not the 'favored driver' here because there is evidence in the record that he violated the restrictions prohibiting use of the turn lane to pass stopped vehicles on the main traveled portion of the highway. Thus, Molvik reasons that Channel does not apply.
Neither party cites any authority for the proposition that Bihler was not the favored driver because of the alleged violations of the relevant statute. For purposes of this discussion, the relevant statute is RCW 46.61.290(3)(c), which provides that:
A vehicle shall not be driven in {two-way left turn} lane for the purpose of overtaking or passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction. No vehicle may travel further than three hundred feet within the lane. A signal . . . for indicating a left turn movement, shall be made at least one hundred feet before the actual left turn movement is made.
Bihler argues that there is ample authority that Molvik was the disfavored driver here because she entered the roadway from a parking lot. Implicit in this argument is that Bihler remained the favored driver. We conclude that it is unnecessary for us to resolve this dispute over whether Bihler was or was not the favored driver. Assuming without deciding that Bihler was the favored driver, we conclude there are genuine issues of material fact remaining for trial.
First, RCW 46.61.290 contemplates the use of the two-way left turn lane for the purpose of making left turns from either direction. Yet there is evidence in the record that Bihler was traveling so fast in the turn lane that he could not have made a left turn into the McDonald's parking lot on the far side of the street where his car landed after the collision.
Following the collision with Molvik's car, Bihler's vehicle had sufficient speed to cross the two eastbound lanes of traffic, continue over the curb and sidewalk, and crash into a parked car in the McDonald's parking lot. Keith Haarsager, owner of the parked vehicle and witness to the incident, stated that his car was hit with such 'great force that it was totaled,' and that Mr. Bihler then exited his vehicle 'with a cut on his forehead.'
Second, coupled with this, there is evidence in the record that Bihler was using the turn lane to pass the stopped vehicles in the westbound lanes that Molvik crossed just before Bihler collided with her. Jeanie Loreman, witness to the accident, stated in her declaration that she looked in both her rearview mirror and driver's side mirror, in the direction from which Bihler came, and observed no conflicting traffic in the center turn lane.
She then signaled to Molvik that she could safely pass her stopped vehicle and proceed into the turn lane. As Molvik passed in front of Lore
Page 1 2 3 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|