Fritsche v. City of Seattle

• Decision Date: 05 September 1941
• Docket Number: 28353.
• Citation: 116 P.2d 562,10 Wn.2d 357
• Parties: FRITSCHE v. CITY OF SEATTLE.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

116 P.2d 562

10 Wn.2d 357

FRITSCHE v. CITY OF SEATTLE.

No. 28353.

Supreme Court of Washington

September 5, 1941

Department 1.

Action by Anne B. C. Fritsche against the City of Seattle, a municipal corporation, for personal injuries resulting when plaintiff slipped on public street of defendant. From a judgment dismissing the action, the plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; William J. Wilkins, judge.

Adams &amp Clark, of Seattle, for appellant.

A. C Van Soelen and John A. Logan, both of Seattle, for respondent.

MAIN Justice.

This action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries. The cause was tried to the court without a jury, and resulted in findings of fact from which the court concluded that the defendant city had not been negligent. From the judgment entered dismissing the action, the plaintiff appealed.

The facts will only be stated in so far as it appears to us to be necessary in order to present what we deem to be the controlling question.

The accident for which recovery was sought happened at the intersection of Federal avenue and East Roy street, in the city of Seattle. East Roy street extends east and west, and Federal avenue extends north and south. On the south side of this intersection are two yellow strips, each of which is twelve inches wide, and the distance between them is nine and one-half feet. What is called the Lowell School is located at or near this intersection, and the crossing is referred to as a school crossing.

At about twelve o'clock noon on November 13, 1939, the appellant approached the intersection from the east on the north side of East Roy street. When she reached the intersection, she crossed to the south side in a rather diagonal direction. As she stepped on the north strip with her right foot, she slipped, and her left ankle struck the curb and was seriously fractured. It was for this injury that recovery was sought.

Aside from the appellant, three witnesses testified that they had slipped upon the same strip, and that the strip was very slippery. One of these witnesses testified that it had the appearance of being rather new. These strips had been repainted, or lacquered, as the engineer testified on August 24, 1939. It was the practice of the city to repaint the school crossings Before the opening of the schools in September of each year.

One of the appellant's witnesses, who visited the intersection on December 5th after the accident, testified that he tested the surface of the painted strips with his foot, 'and I likewise tested the surface of the pavement upon which they were painted, and I found that the paint stripes were slippery'; that at the time of his visit the painted strips were dry; that they were 'very slick and slippery'; that the pavement was not slippery; that he had, since the 5th day of December, referring to similar strips, 'tested hundreds of them since the time I first went up there on December 2nd [5th], and I have never found any other slippery traffic strips'; that the paint on the strips in question appeared to be fresh; that at the time of the trial the city was using white strips instead of yellow; and that these were not slippery, as were the yellow strips.

An engineer, who was employed by the respondent in the engineering department, traffic division, was called by the city. He testified that he had quite a little to do with painting the crossing strips; that it is usual to repaint them just prior to the opening of school; that it takes the strips from three to twenty minutes to dry, depending upon the condition of the weather; that, after it has once dried it remains permanently in that condition; that the strips are for...