Green v. City of Seattle

• Decision Date: 06 December 1927
• Docket Number: 20762.
• Citation: 261 P. 643,146 Wash. 27
• Parties: GREEN v. CITY OF SEATTLE.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

261 P. 643

146 Wash. 27

GREEN v. CITY OF SEATTLE.

No. 20762.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 6, 1927

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Kinne, Judge.

Action by Dorothy M. Green, administratrix of the estate of Carroll B. Green, deceased, against the City of Seattle. Judgment of dismissal, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Beardslee & Bassett, C. W. Dark, and C. W. Pierce, all of Seattle, for appellant.

Thomas J. L. Kennedy and Arthur Schramm, Jr., both of Seattle, for respondent.

MAIN J.

The plaintiff, as administratrix of the estate of Carroll B Green, deceased, brought this action to recover for the wrongful death of the intestate. To the complaint a demurrer was interposed and sustained. The plaintiff refused to plead further and elected to stand upon the complaint. A judgment was entered dismissing the action, from which she appeals.

Carroll B. Green died on the 23d day of December, 1924, as the result of injuries sustained when he was struck by one of respondent's street cars the preceding day. Within 30 days from the date of the injury, Dorothy M. Green, his widow, filed a claim with the respondent for damages for the wrongful death of her husband. A copy of this claim was attached to the complaint and made a part thereof. The claim was signed, 'Dorothy M. Green, Claimant,' and was verified by 'Dorothy M. Green.' The action is brought by Dorothy M. Green, as administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband. The only objection to the claim appears to be that it was not verified by Mrs. Green, as administratrix.

Section 183, Rem. Comp. Stat., provides that, when the death of a person is caused by the wrongful act, neglect, or default of another, his personal representative may maintain an action for damages against the person causing the death. Sec. 183-1 provides that every such action shall be for the benefit of the 'wife, husband, child or children of the person whose death shall have been so caused.' In this case the action is brought solely for the benefit of the wife. So far as the complaint is concerned, there are no other beneficiaries. In Okitsuki v. Seattle, 115 Wash. 245, 197 P. 6, it was held that a claim which gave the residence of the administrator of the estate of the deceased for the time required by law preceding the death was sufficient, because under the statute above referred to the administrator in law became the claimant.

Starting then, with the proposition that the administrator, or administratrix, as the case may be, is in law the claimant the only question to be determined in this case is whether a claim signed individually by the widow, who was the sole beneficiary of the deceased, was sufficient. In Davis v. Seattle, 37 Wash. 223, 79 P. 784, it was held that a claim for personal injuries presented by a married woman in her own name was sufficient to support an action by the husband and wife, where the claim was not rejected on the ground that the husband was not a party to it, and where the claim was admitted in evidence without objection, and its sufficiency was not questioned until after the findings of fact were filed. In Blackwell v. Seattle, 97 Wash. 679, 167 P. 53, it was held that the wife may make and file a claim for personal injuries against a city in her own name, where the husband and wife are living separate and apart, and the husband was out of the state at the time, and did not return until after the time for filing the claim had expired. It was there said:

'The evidence shows, as we have above stated, that, at the time Mrs. Blackwell was injured, her husband was residing in the state of Oregon, while she was residing in the city of Seattle. Her husband had been residing in the state of Oregon for about 2 years, and did not return to this state until more then 60 days after

...