Washington Law Review




On a bright summer morning, defendant slowed her automobile, intending to make a left turn. The road stretched dry and straight before her for more than a mile. She turned on her left signal blinker, observed a truck in the distance coming toward her, and looked in her rear view mirror. Seeing a car pulling out to pass her, she slowed further and waited for it to go by. Then she turned abruptly to the left and drove straight into the path of the oncoming truck. Plaintiff passenger, seriously injured in the collision, sued defendant, alleging gross negligence. The trial court sustained defendant's challenge to the evidence, ruling as a matter of law that defendant's actions did not constitute gross negligence within the meaning of the guest statute. On appeal, the Washington Supreme Court, sitting en banc, reversed and remanded. Held: In a factual setting involving a high degree of risk, the exercise of some care does not, as a matter of law, preclude the existence of gross negligence. Nist v. Tudor, 67 Wash. Dec. 2d 317, 407 P.2d 798 (1965)

First Page