Grass v. City of Seattle
| Decision Date | 13 March 1918 |
| Docket Number | 14452. |
| Citation | 171 P. 533,100 Wash. 542 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | GRASS et ux. v. CITY OF SEATTLE. |
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; J. T. Ronald Judge.
Action by Martin M. Grass and Catherine Grass, his wife, against the City of Seattle. There was a verdict for defendant, and motion for new trial being granted, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with instructions to enter a judgment upon the verdict.
Hugh M Caldwell and Patrick M. Tammany, both of Seattle, for appellant.
The respondents Grass brought an action against the city of Seattle to recover for personal injuries received by Mrs Grass from a fall caused by tripping over a defective place in a sidewalk on one of the city streets. The defect consisted in a straight break across a cement sidewalk, leaving one side elevated above the other. The elevation at the inner line of the walk was 1 1/8 inches high, gradually tapering to nothing at the curb. The exact location of the part of the walk over which the respondent tripped does not appear in evidence.
The cause was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict for the city. A motion for a new trial was interposed by the respondents on the grounds of irregularity in the proceedings of the court, accident and surprise, insufficiency of the evidence, and error in law occurring at the trial. The trial court granted the motion for reasons which are stated in the order in the following language:
'The court, having heard the arguments of counsel and being fully advised, is of the opinion that error in law was committed by the court's refusal to give certain instructions which were proposed and submitted by plaintiffs, and also owing to the irregularity in the proceedings on the part of the trial court which consisted of comment by the trial court during the progress of the case, as is more clearly evidenced and shown by the statement of facts; and the trial court recognizing and being of the opinion that the comment by the trial court during the progress of the trial, and the demeanor of the trial court, might very easily have prejudiced, and in all probability did prejudice, the jury against the plaintiffs, by reason whereof the plaintiffs were prevented from having a fair trial, and as a consequence the trial court concludes that in fairness to all parties plaintiffs should be granted a new trial.'
From the disposition made of the case by the court, the city appeals....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brent
... ... [191 P.2d 683] ... Edwards ... E. Merges, of Seattle, for respondent ... H ... Sylvester Garvin and Ralph A. Horr, both of ... North Coast Transp. Co., ... 168 Wash. 515, 12 P.2d 749; Eastwood v. City of ... Seattle, 169 Wash. 680, 14 P.2d 1116; Bowser v. City ... of Seattle, 186 ... Dunkle v ... Spokane Falls & Northern Ry. Co., 20 Wash. 254, 55 P ... 51; Grass v. City of Seattle, 100 Wash. 542, 171 P ... 533; Sellman v. Hess, 15 Wash.2d 310, 130 ... ...
-
Taylor v. Kansas City
... ... 74, 64 N.W. 951; Jackson v ... Lansing, 121 Mich. 279, 80 N.W. 8; Rivard v. Bay ... City, 279 Mich. 318, 272 N.W. 690; Grass v ... Seattle, 100 Wash. 542, 171 P. 533; McGlinn v ... Philadelphia, 322 Pa. 478, 186 A. 747; Denver v ... Burrows, 76 Colo. 17, 227 P ... ...
-
Pearson v. Boise City
...681; Kelleher v. City of West St. Paul, 193 Minn. 487, 258 N.W. 834; Walker v. Reeves, 204 Okl. 669, 233 P.2d 307; Grass v. City of Seattle, 100 Wash. 542, 171 P. 533; 63 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 807b, p. 129; Annotation, 41 A.L.R.2d 744, § The authorities are overwhelming in their h......
-
Atkins v. Clein
... ... Meakim, judge ... [3 ... Wn.2d 169] Kahin, Carmody & Schramm, of Seattle, for ... appellants ... Kennett ... & Benton, of Seattle, for ... the case to the jury: Grass v. Seattle, 100 Wash ... 542, 171 P. 533; Adams v. Anderson & Middleton Lumber ... ...