F. W. Woolworth Co. v. City of Seattle
| Decision Date | 06 January 1919 |
| Docket Number | 14902. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | F. W. WOOLWORTH CO. v. CITY OF SEATTLE. |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; J. T. Ronald, Judge.
Action by the F. W. Woolworth Company against the City of Seattle. Judgment of dismissal, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Leola May Blinn, of Seattle, for appellant.
Hugh M Caldwell and James A. Dougan, both of Seattle, for respondent.
Appellant plaintiff below, was engaged in the mercantile business in the Arcade Building in Seattle. In addition to its sales room it occupied the basement underneath for the storage receiving, checking, and shipping of its merchandise. It was a tenant of the premises, the basement of which abuts upon University street. The city maintained a sewer in University street. Radiating from this sewer there was a lateral sewer from and accommodating the premises used by appellant. On March 5, 1917, there was an average heavy rainfall when the basement became flooded, causing damage to appellant's goods and merchandise which, together with the cost of removing and cleaning the same, amounted to the alleged sum of $448.56. Charging the city with negligence in maintaining a main sewer on University street inadequate to meet the burden imposed upon it, resulting in the damage referred to, appellant presented to the city its duly verified claim for damages, the rejection of which occasioned this action. The city by its answer denied liability and affirmatively answered, alleging contributory negligence. The case was tried without a jury. At the close of plaintiff's case the court granted defendant's motion for a nonsuit. Upon the request of defendant findings of fact were made upon which a judgment of dismissal was entered. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment.
On the date mentioned and for some years prior thereto there was in force an ordinance of the city which, inter alia, provides:
'All cellar and basement drains must, when connected to sewer, * * * be protected from backwater by backwater valves said backwater valves must be provided with an air-tight clean-out cover placed immediately above valve, either screwed or bolted in place, capable of being removed for examination or repairs.'
In the basement there was installed an iron manhole or receiving water tank, some two feet deep and about the same in diameter, narrower at the top, on which was placed, flush with the floor, a latticed circular iron cover having a mesh about two inches square. Within the manhole the intake of the drainpipe formed an elbow the end of which, turned down and submerged in water when in place, was below the bottom of the stem of the drainpipe, thus forming a trap to prevent odors escaping from the sewer. On the stem of the pipe near the elbow and within the manhole there was constructed a backwater valve and cover as provided by the ordinance of the city. The drainpipe ran into a larger one from the building and thence into the University street main sewer. The water that flooded the basement poured back boiling out of the manhole.
It is the contention of appellant that the incapacity of the main sewer alone caused the flooding, while the respondent claims the backwater valve had been allowed to become unclean and clogged by the fault of appellant, thus causing the flooding and damage. The trial court found the main sewer inadequate to which the city took no exception, and also found the appellant negligent in not keeping the backwater valve clean and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
North Bend Lumber Co. v. City of Seattle
... ... accumulation of surface water, but manifestly it was not ... obliged to anticipate danger from any such source as the ... bursting of this water main.' ... The ... appellant contends that the case of Woolworth Co. v ... Seattle, 104 Wash. 629, 177 P. 664, is contrary to our ... conclusion. But that case, in our judgment, is easily ... distinguishable from this one. It was there held that no ... recovery could be had for damages because of the flooding and ... injury to ... ...
-
Richardson & Holland, Inc. v. Owen
...directly and proximately contributed to the injury. Appellant then argues that this case is ruled by our decision in Woolworth Co. v. Seattle, 104 Wash. 629, 177 P. 664. See, also, Hellan v. Supply Laundry Co., 94 683, 163 P. 9; Ross v. Smith & Bloxom, 107 Wash. 493, 182 P. 582; Twedt v. Se......
-
Kleinclaus v. Marin Realty Co.
...wilfulness and if the case had been tried on that theory might have justified a finding of deliberate trespass. Woolworth Co. v. Seattle, 104 Wash. 629, 177 P. 644, relied upon by respondents, involved the violation of an ordinance by the plaintiff, and has twice been expressly distinguishe......
-
Tombari v. City of Spokane, 27256.
...properly compensated therefor. We think this is the better rule and is well supported by both reason and authority.' Woolworth Co. v. Seattle, 104 Wash. 629, 177 P. 664, is cited by in support of its theory that there can be no recovery for damages from flooding where the loss was due to th......