Bartlett v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 21 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 39603,39603 |
| Citation | 447 P.2d 735,74 Wn.2d 881 |
| Parties | John L. BARTLETT, Appellant, v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, a corporation, and the City of Tacoma, a municipal corporation, Respondents. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Peterson & Haarmann, Robert H. Peterson, Tacoma, for appellant.
John J. Majeres, Roger J. Crosby, Seattle, Marshall McCormick, Corp. Counsel, Tacoma, Reed, McClure & Moceri, Roy J. Moceri, Seattle, for respondents.
The trial court in granting summary judgment of dismissal of the plaintiff's action against the city of Tacoma and the Northern Pacific Railway Company, commented 'Maybe the supreme court will thing differently.' It does!
The end result may be the same at the conclusion of a jury trial, for a jury may reach the same conclusion as the trial court: That neither defendant failed in any duty owed to the plaintiff which could have prevented the injuries which he sustained. Nevertheless, we are satisfied that there are issues of fact which should be decided by a jury.
The plaintiff had driven his automobile up an inclined roadway where it makes a 90 left turn to cross a bridge over the Northern Pacific Railway tracks at a height of some 35 feet above the ground. Unknown to the plaintiff, the surface of the roadway at the place where this turn occurs was slippery (there were statements that it was icy), and instead of his car making the turn, it continued straight ahead over a wooden curb, across a 6-foot sidewalk and through a guardrail, plunging to the ground below.
The plaintiff contends that the defendants knew that, at the temperatures then existing, the roadway at this point might be icy, and that no adequate warning of the potentially dangerous situation was given. The defendants 1 respond that plaintiff was familiar with the roadway and that a posted speed of 10 miles per hour was ample notice that more than ordinary care was required. (The defendants contend that had plaintiff obeyed that speed limit his car would not have gone over the curb, across the sidewalk and through the guardrail.)
We said in Barton v. King County, 18 Wash.2d 573, 576, 139 P.2d 1019, 1021, after reviewing a number of our cases:
The gist of the decisions in these cases, * * * is that the municipality May be chargeable with negligence for failure to maintain warning signs or barriers If the situation along the highway is inherently dangerous or of such character as to mislead a traveler exercising reasonable care.
We express no view as to the merits of the present controversy; we are simply saying: (1) that a jury could find the situation at the locus in quo was inherently dangerous, or of such a character as to have misled a traveler exercising reasonable care; and (2) if the jury should so find, then the adequacy of the warnings given and of the barriers (curbs and guardrails) maintained would likewise be a jury question and not an issue to be determined on summary judgment. Overton v. Wenatchee Beebe Orchard Co., 28 Wash.2d 377, 183 P.2d 473, 173 A.L.R. 616 (1947).
The plaintiff urges that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCluskey v. Handorff-Sherman
...highway is inherently dangerous or of such a character as to mislead a traveler exercising reasonable care. Bartlett v. Northern Pac. Ry., 74 Wash.2d 881, 882, 447 P.2d 735 (1968); Provins, 70 Wash.2d at 138, 422 P.2d Washington statutes also discuss the State's responsibilities for providi......
-
Bodin v. City of Stanwood
...evidence of practicality, cost or otherwise, of guardrails and barriers on roads and bridges. E.g., Bartlett v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 74 Wash.2d 881, 883, 447 P.2d 735 (1968); Davison v. Snohomish County, 149 Wash. 109, 113-14, 270 P. 422 (1928). 2 As noted above, "[t]he financial burden, ......
-
Eakin Enters., Inc. v. Stratton Ballew, PLLC
...trials, but the procedure should not be used when a real doubt exists as to decisive factualissues. Bartlett v. Northern Pacific Railway Co., 74 Wn.2d 881, 883, 447 P.2d 735 (1968). To satisfy his burden on summary judgment, the movant must make a showing that it is quite clear what the tru......
-
Ruff v. County of King
...591, 595, 209 P.2d 279 (1949); Tanguma v. Yakima Cy., 18 Wash.App. 555, 558-59, 569 P.2d 1225 (1977); see also Bartlett v. Northern Pac. Ry., 74 Wash.2d 881, 447 P.2d 735 (1968); Wessels v. Stevens Cy., 110 Wash. 196, 188 P. 490 (1920); Leber v. King Cy., 69 Wash. 134, 124 P. 397 (1912). Th......
-
Washington State's 45-year Experiment in Governmental Liability
...survey discussing Evangelical. See Discretionary Acts, supra note 57, at 552, 558. 65. Bartlett v. N. Pac. Ry. Co., 74 Wash. 2d 881, 447 P.2d 735 (1968); Provins v. Bevis, 70 Wash. 2d 131, 422 P.2d 505 (1967); Raybell v. State, 6 Wash. App. 795, 496 P.2d 559 (1972). Meabon v. State, 1 Wash.......