Bichl v. Poinier

10 Citing cases

  1. Albretsen v. United States

    2:23-CV-00044-SMM (E.D. Wash. Jul. 15, 2024)

    Plaintiff argues that under Washington law, the primary duty of avoiding a collision rests on the following driver. Bichl v. Poinier, 429 P.2d 228, 229-230 (Wash. 1967).

  2. City of Spokane v. Vaux

    83 Wn. 2d 126 (Wash. 1973)   Cited 32 times
    Upholding ordinance criminalizing dangerous driving

    In the absence of an emergency or unusual conditions, the following driver is negligent if he collides with the vehicle ahead. Bichl v. Poinier, 71 Wn.2d 492, 429 P.2d 228 (1967). The driver of the forward vehicle does not create an emergency by obeying a traffic signal.

  3. Nordstrom v. White Metal

    75 Wn. 2d 629 (Wash. 1969)   Cited 46 times
    In Nordstrom v. White Metal Rolling Stamping Corp., 75 Wn.2d 629, 453 P.2d 619 (1969) we held that safety codes issued by private bodies, and government standards not having the force of law, are admissible where relevant, trustworthy and necessary to prove the matter contained therein.

    Any dissimilarity between the conditions under which a test of this kind is performed and those existing at the time of the accident goes to the weight of the evidence and is a matter to be evaluated by the jury. Bichl v. Poinier, 71 Wn.2d 492, 429 P.2d 228 (1967). Furthermore, any objection to this type of evidence which the plaintiff might have had was waived when he introduced evidence of his own tests.

  4. Kill v. City of Seattle

    No. 70767-1-I (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    Similarly, variance in test conditions and original conditions do not necessarily preclude admissibility, as variations may merely go to the weight of the evidence. Bichl v. Poinier. 71 Wn.2d 492, 497, 429 P.2d 228 (1967). Identical conditions are not required.

  5. Nunnery v. Brantley Construction Co., Inc.

    289 S.C. 205 (S.C. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 22 times
    Applying res judicata to claims involving the same parties or their privies and the same subject matter

    A latent defect is one of which Brantley had no knowledge and, in the exercise of reasonable care, could not have discovered. Bichl v. Poinier, 71 Wn.2d 492, 429 P.2d 228, 231 (1967). Inasmuch as res judicata principles apply to matters that "might have been decided" [ Bagwell v. Hinton, 205 S.C. 377, 400, 32 S.E.2d 147, 156 (1944)] and to "issues which could have been raised in the former suit" [ Ford v. Watson. 282 S.C. 66, 316 S.E.2d 429 (Ct.App. 1984)], I fail to see how this principle would bar that part of the arbitration claim that is based upon latent defects in the roof that were undiscoverable by inspection or customary tests.

  6. Bich v. General Electric Co.

    27 Wn. App. 25 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 23 times
    Concluding that it was a question of fact for the jury whether the substitution of Westinghouse for General Electric fuses in a transformer constituted a substantial change

    Here, GE's experts testified at length as to the time-delay characteristics of the two fuses. A trial court is given wide discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence as to tests and experiments and will be reversed only for an abuse of discretion. Bichl v. Poinier, 71 Wn.2d 492, 429 P.2d 228 (1967). We find no abuse of discretion.

  7. State v. Burt

    605 P.2d 342 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979)

    State v. McMurray, 47 Wn.2d 128, 286 P.2d 684 (1955). It is firmly established, however, that trial courts have wide discretion in determining admissibility of evidence as to tests, and will only be reversed for an abuse of discretion. Bichl v. Poinier, 71 Wn.2d 492, 497, 429 P.2d 228 (1967); Knight v. Borgan, supra; State v. McMurray, supra. In the present case, Officer Pratt originally testified that the minimum speed of the vehicle was 71.6 miles per hour. During cross-examination the defense suggested that this calculation was inaccurate because of many factors not considered as variables between the subject vehicle and the test vehicle, such as: type of tires, amount of tread on the tires, temperature of tires, tire pressure, weight of vehicles, condition of brakes, temperature of pavement, weather, and alteration of the original skid marks due to evaporation and erasure.

  8. Holt v. Nelson

    11 Wn. App. 230 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 34 times
    Enumerating exceptions to the informed consent doctrine

    The purpose of requiring exceptions to be specific and definite is to apprise the court of the grounds for objection, enlighten the court on the theories of law which support the objector's position and enable the court to correct mistakes in time to avoid unnecessary retrials. Moore v. Mayfair Tavern, Inc., 75 Wn.2d 401, 451 P.2d 669 (1969); Bichl v. Poinier, 71 Wn.2d 492, 429 P.2d 228 (1967); Matthias v. Lehn Fink Prods. Corp., 70 Wn.2d 541, 424 P.2d 284 (1967); Roumel v. Fude, 62 Wn.2d 397, 383 P.2d 283 (1963). A review of the record of the exception taken and the colloquy surrounding the taking of the exception show that the trial court was made aware of the issue of law raised, and the issue was fully discussed.

  9. Breimon v. General Motors Corp.

    8 Wn. App. 747 (Wash. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 20 times

    The trial court must exercise its discretion in deciding whether substantially similar conditions prevail, and its decision will stand unless there has been an abuse prejudicial to the losing party. Bichl v. Poinier, 71 Wn.2d 492, 429 P.2d 228 (1967); Dipangrazio v. Salamonsen, 64 Wn.2d 720, 393 P.2d 936 (1964). Variations in conditions go to the weight to be given the testimony surrounding an experiment rather than to admissibility, and an experiment may be admitted to prove the theory of a party as to how an accident may have occurred as well as to prove how it actually occurred.

  10. Hellbaum v. Burwell Morford

    1 Wn. App. 694 (Wash. Ct. App. 1969)   Cited 22 times
    In Hellbaum, supra, a case which involved facts similar to this ease, a jury award in favor of the insured was affirmed by the Washington Court of Appeals on contract, tort and promissory estoppel theories.

    Plaintiffs first contend that the exception is insufficient to permit any review, citing CR 51(f), Bichl v. Poinier, 71 Wn.2d 492, 429 P.2d 228 (1967); Matthias v. Lehn Fink Prods. Corp., 70 Wn.2d 541, 424 P.2d 284 (1967), and Roumel v. Fude, 62 Wn.2d 397, 383 P.2d 283 (1963). In our opinion, the exception was sufficient to raise the question as to whether there was substantial evidence of the existence of the elements embodied in instruction No. 9.