Einseidler v. Whitman County
| Citation | 60 P. 1122,22 Wash. 388 |
| Parties | EINSEIDLER et al. v. WHITMAN COUNTY. |
| Decision Date | 18 April 1900 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
Appeal from superior court, Whitman county; William McDonald, Judge.
Action for injuries by George Einseidler and Mary E. Einseidler against the county of Whitman. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Wm. A. Inman and J. T. Brown, for appellant.
Chadwick & Bryant, for respondents.
Action against Whitman county for personal injuries sustained by Mary E. Einseidler, one of the plaintiffs, in crossing a county bridge. The bridge was an old and established one, and used by the people generally in the vicinity where it was situated. The county commissioners had let a contract for the construction of a new bridge not far from the site of the old one. The accident occurred on the 21st of July, 1898. In the construction of the new bridge the iron material was taken from the old one, and used in the new, and in removing the iron the guard rails were taken off the old bridge. The bridge was about 60 feet long, 15 or 16 feet above the water level, and 13 feet wide. For some time previous to the 21st of July there had been a hole in the old bridge near the west end. This had been filled with stones and dirt so as to bring it up nearly to the level of the bridge floor, but about the time the accident occurred, and a little previously, the filling had been renewed in this hole with blocks and rubbish from the new bridge. By an agreement between the contractor who was building the new bridge and the commissioners, the contractor, in consideration of being relieved from dismantling and removing the bridge, by direction of the commissioners put props and braces under it sufficient to sustain ordinary travel and heavy loads. On the day of the accident Mrs. Einseidler passed over the bridge, and returning within an hour or two afterwards, her team consisting of two horses attached to a carriage, became frightened at the hole in the bridge and the rubbish thrown therein, and backed off about 14 feet back of the west approach, when the carriage and team fell with her a distance of about 19 feet, causing the injuries complained of. The team was an ordinarily gentle one. There was judgment for the plaintiffs, and many errors are assigned here.
The proposed instructions on the part of the defendant tendered and refused by the court have all been examined, and, while several of them contain a fair expression of the law applicable to the facts before the court, the instructions given substantially cover them. There was no evidence upon which to predicate the proposed instruction that the negligence was that of an independent contractor in the prosecution of his work. It was the duty of the county to maintain the bridge in repair, or to condemn it, and in some manner to close it to public travel. There was testimony tending to show that the county commissioners, through the one who had charge of the roads in the district in which this bridge was situated, were advised of its befective nature and it would seem that the direction of the commissioners to the contractor to prop the bridge so that it could still be used for travel indicated that defendant was sufficiently informed of its condition.
The court instructed the jury that, if it found...
To continue reading
Request your trial