Davison v. Snohomish County

• Decision Date: 14 September 1928
• Docket Number: 21303.
• Citation: 270 P. 422,149 Wash. 109
• Parties: DAVISON et ux. v. SNOHOMISH COUNTY.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

270 P. 422

149 Wash. 109

DAVISON et ux. v. SNOHOMISH COUNTY.

No. 21303.

Supreme Court of Washington

September 14, 1928

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; Guy C. Alston, Judge.

Action by Edwin F. Davison and wife against Snohomish County. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Reversed with directions to dismiss the action.

Charles R. Denney, of Everett, and Phil G. Warnock, of Kennewick, for appellant.

Clarence J. Coleman, of Everett, for respondents.

BEALS J.

Plaintiffs instituted this action against Snohomish county as defendant seeking to recover damages alleged to have been suffered by them as the result of the negligence of defendant in the construction and maintenance of the elevated approach to a bridge known as the Bascule bridge across Ebey slough. In the southwesterly approach to this bridge there is a right angle turn towards the south just easterly of the slough, and at this point the causeway or approach to the bridge is at quite an elevation above the ground level. The bridge itself is approximately 18 feet wide; the approach leading to the bridge proper, at the curve just to the east of the bridge, increases in width to a maximum of 30.9 feet narrowing again to 18 feet at the end of the turn.

At about 8 o'clock in the evening of November 11, 1926 plaintiffs were driving their Ford automobile toward the city of Snohomish, and proceeded to cross the bridge from west to east at a low rate of speed. Plaintiff Edwin F. Davison was driving, and, as the car rounded the curve to the east of the slough, he lost control, the car skidded, struck the railing on the east or outer edge of the approach just around the curve, broke through the railing, and, with plaintiffs, fell to the ground. Both plaintiffs suffered severe and painfull injuries, and the automobile was wrecked; for all of which damage plaintiffs prayed for judgment in a large amount.

Defendant answered plaintiffs' complaint, denying all the allegations of negligence on its part and affirmatively pleading contributory negligence on the part of plaintiffs. The action came on regularly for trial, and resulted in a verdict in plaintiffs' favor in the sum of $2,500. Defendant seasonably moved for judgment in its favor notwithstanding the verdict, or, in the alternative, for a new trial. Both of these motions were denied by the trial court, which tereupon entered judgment upon the verdict, from which judgment defendant appeals.

There is no dispute as to the reasonableness of the amount of the verdict, if appellant is liable at all; the sole question raised being the liability of the county for any damages whatsoever.

Respondents allege that appellant was negligent in the construction and maintenance of the approach to the bridge, in that, at the time of the accident, the railing through which respondents' car broke was insufficient to act as a guard; that the posts which supported the same were decayed; that the floor or deck of the approach was so constructed as to slope out and down from the center of the curve to the outer edge, and that appellant, prior to the accident, had been repairing a road near the west approach of the bridge and in doing this work hauled over the bridge from the east a considerable quantity of dirt, a portion of which was scattered on and over the approach; that on November 11, 1926, considerable rain fell, and that, as a result, the deck of the approach, being covered with wet dirt, became very slippery, and, coupled with the other conditions alleged, constituted a menace to motor vehicle traffic.

Respondents urge that the combined effect of the different matters of which they complain produced a dangerous situation, and that the suffering of such a condition to exist constituted negligence on the part of appellant and renders appellant liable for the damages suffered by respondents.

Appellant contends that respondents failed to prove negligence on the part of appellant, and that its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should have been granted. Appellant also assigns other errors, but, in view of our opinion upon the question of appellant's alleged negligence, the other matters assigned as error need not be discussed.

It is undoubtedly the law that it is the duty of a municipality to keep its bridges in a reasonably safe condition for travel. Zolawenski v. City of Aberdeen, 72 Wash. 95, 129 P. 1090. On the other hand, a municipality is not an insurer of the safety of every one who uses its thoroughfares; nor is it required to keep the same in such a condition that accidents cannot possibly happen upon them. As was stated by this court in Grass v. City of Seattle, 100 Wash. 542, 171 P. 533, discussing an accident to a pedestrian which it was claimed was caused by a drop in a sidewalk ranging from 2 1/2 inches at one side of the walk to nothing at the other side:

'Manifestly, it seems to us, a city cannot be held negligent for suffering to remain in a sidewalk a defect so inconsequential as this one was shown to be. A city is not an insurer of the personal safety of every one who uses its public walks. It owes no duty to keep them in such repair that accidents cannot possibly happen upon them. Its duty in this respect is done when it keeps them reasonably safe for use--safe for those who use them in the erexcise of ordinary care--and we cannot but conclude that this one was thus reasonably safe.'

Respondents admitted that they were thoroughly familiar with the bridge and its approaches, having driven over the same many times prior to the day of the accident, and they consequently were fully advised as to the existence and location of the curve in the approach, the width of the bridge, and the approaches and the different grades therein.

As respondents rely upon three several elements, each of which they claim resulted from the negligence of appellant, all three uniting to render the bridge unsafe and to cause the accident which is the basis of this action, it is necessary to analyze these elements of alleged negligence: First, the insufficiency of the railing or guard to prevent respondents' automobile from skidding off the approach second, the fact that the deck of the approach, at the curve, sloped downward toward the outer edge, which had a tendency to cause the automobile to slide in that direction; and, third, the fact that dirt was...