Benson v. City of Hoquiam

• Decision Date: 31 January 1912
• Citation: 67 Wash. 90,121 P. 58
• Parties: BENSON v. CITY OF HOQUIAM.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

121 P. 58

67 Wash. 90

BENSON v. CITY OF HOQUIAM.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 31, 1912

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Chehalis County; Ben Sheeks Judge.

Action by Charles Benson against the City of Hoquiam. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Morgan & Brewer, for appellant.

James P. H. Callahan and Boner & Boner, for respondent.

CHADWICK J.

Plaintiff claims to have been injured as the result of the negligence of the defendant, a municipal corporation. Within the time limited by law and ordinance, he presented his claim in form following: 'You are hereby notified that on the 13th of September, 1910, at about the hour of 8:30 o'clock in the evening of said day at the corner of the intersection between K street and Emerson avenue in the city of Hoquiam, I received an injury through and by reason of falling or being thrown to the street, a portion of the planking having been removed, leaving an opening in said street through the carelessness and neglect of the officers agents, and employés of the city of Hoquiam; that there was no light placed at said opening in the street, nor was there any protection placed around the opening in said street, nor warning of a dangerous place being given in any way; that I claim and demand as damages against the city of Hoquiam for such injuries the sum of $5,000, and I herewith make demand for settlement in said sum.' This was presented to the city council, and by it referred to the city attorney. No action having been taken within 60 days, this action was begun. After the time for filing had run, plaintiff went to the city clerk's office and attached an affidavit or verification, in which the requirements of the Act of 1909 p. 627, were set out. It is earnestly argued that the claim notice is sufficient under many decisions of this court, and this may be true; but after these decisions were pronounced and presumably to change the rule of law announced therein, the Legislature provided by a general law that a sufficient claim must be filed within 30 days, and that all such claims shall set forth specifically the things which we had for the most part held unnecessary in the decisions relied on.

In the case of Wolpers v. Spokane, 120 P. 113, decided January 17, 1912, a demurrer was sustained because the claim was insufficient, and, although we reversed the case because we were unwilling to hold that either the law of 1...