Cooper v. City of Seattle

• Decision Date: 11 February 1897
• Citation: 16 Wash. 462,47 P. 887
• Parties: COOPER ET AL. v. CITY OF SEATTLE.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

47 P. 887

16 Wash. 462

COOPER ET AL. v. CITY OF SEATTLE.

Supreme Court of Washington

February 11, 1897

Appeal from superior court, King county; R. Osborn, Judge.

Action by Isaac Cooper and Louis Levy, partners, against the city of Seattle. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

John K. Brown and F. B. Tipton, for appellant.

Blaine & De Vries, for respondents.

GORDON J.

The appellant entered into a contract with Spurr & Wilmot to improve and pave a certain street in the city of Seattle. While engaged in that work, the contractors excavated under a certain water main, removed the earth from around it, and thereafter filled up the excavation. As a result of such excavation and removal of the earth which supported it, the main burst, causing water therefrom to flow into the cellar of respondents, damaging their goods. This action was brought to recover from the city the damages so sustained. There was a verdict and judgment for the respondents, from which the city has appealed.

The only question which we need to consider is whether Spurr &amp Wilmot were independent contractors, for whose negligence the appellant is responsible. The charter of the city of Seattle amended March 8, 1892, and in force at the time when the contract in question was entered into, conferred upon the board of public works the management and control of public streets and alleys of the city; also the superintendence of streets, making the improvements therein, and the management building, and repairing of all sewers and connections therewith. It further provides that such improvements as are made by contractors shall be made under the management of the board of public works. The contract and specifications in the case under consideration contained numerous provisions requiring the material used for the work to be of the kind and dimensions designated by the city engineer; also that the general plan should be subject to "such changes or additional plans or instructions as the city engineer might require, *** before the beginning or during the progress of the work." The contract also contained the following stipulations: "Plans and Superintendence. This improvement shall be under the superintendence of the city engineer, and any orders or directions given by him or his duly-appointed representative shall be respected, and immediately and strictly obeyed, by the contractor, or any overseer in charge of the work. It is hereby...