6 Wash. App. 795 - Raybell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently December 2019 · most notably Keller v. City of Spokane (2002), D'Arcy v. Shugrue (1985)
32 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 76 Wash. 2d 265 - Rikstad v. Holmberg · 75 Wash. 2d 629 - Nordstrom v. White Metal Rolling and Stamping Corp. · 68 Wash. 2d 304 - State v. Louie · 27 Wash. 2d 802 - Gardner v. Seymour · 70 Wash. 2d 131 - Provins v. Bevis
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“upon the state a dual standard of care in the repair and maintenance of its public highways with regard to those using the highways, i.e., one applicable to drivers and another applicable to passengers. The state’s compliance with the requirement of an adequate warning would be a defense from liability for injury to a driver, but not for injury to a passenger. Such a position is founded upon the reasonable foreseeability by the state of a driver’s disregard for, or failure to see, a warning sign, resulting in a passenger’s injury. The logical conclusion of this theory would result in the imposition of absolute liability upon the state for failure to eliminate dangerous highway conditions, resulting in injuries to passengers, without consideration of the adequacy of any warning of the dangerous condition. . . . Such is not the rule in Washington. The standard of care required of the state in the maintenance of its public highways remains the same towards both the driver and his passengers, i.e., the traveling public. . . . Until plaintiff proves a breach of the state’s duty of ordinary care, the state has committed no legal wrong. In this context, a passenger’s well-being is in the hands of his driver.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“This rule does nothing more nor less than impose upon a municipality the duty of maintaining its streets or highways in a reasonably safe condition for the users, and where the condition in or along the highway is inherently dangerous or deceptive to the reasonably prudent traveler, the rule requires the municipality to reasonably and adequately warn of the hazard and maintain adequate protective barriers where such barriers are shown to be practical and feasible.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“not an insurer against accident nor a guarantor of the safety oí travelers. It is, however, obligated to exercise ordinary care to keep its public ways in a reasonably safe condition for persons using them in a proper manner and exercising due care for their own safety.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.