Haynes v. City of Seattle

• Decision Date: 29 July 1912
• Citation: 125 P. 147,69 Wash. 419
• Parties: HAYNES v. CITY OF SEATTLE.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

125 P. 147

69 Wash. 419

HAYNES v. CITY OF SEATTLE.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 29, 1912

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; John F. Main Judge.

Action by Robert M. Haynes, a minor, by Manly B. Haynes, his guardian, against the City of Seattle. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

James E. Bradford and William B. Allison, for appellant.

E. H Guie, of Seattle, for respondent.

FULLERTON J.

The respondent, a minor of the age of nine years, brought this action, by his guardian, against the city of Seattle to recover for personal injuries. At the time he received his injury, the respondent was attending one of the primary public schools of the city of Seattle. The block upon which the school building was constructed abutted upon a street known as Eleventh Avenue North, the block opening directly upon the street; no fence or barriers of any king being erected to separate the one from the other. On the day of the accident, a force of men working for the city were engaged in stretching electric light wires on poles set on the margin of the street. One such pole was set in the street near the corner of the block on which the schoolhouse stood. In the performance of their work, the workmen placed at the foot of this pole a coil of wire, passing one end of the wire over a crossarm fastened to the top of the pole, some 35 feet from the ground. The wire was then loosely strung for some three or four blocks over other poles set along the street. Where it was fastened to a cable. A team of horses was hitched to the end of the cable, and the wire strung by the horses pulling the same along as desired. As the wire was pulled, it would unwind from the coil and pass over the crossarm. This work was going on at the time of the afternoon recess of the school, when the respondent, with boys of his age, was let out of the school building. The boys were attracted to the moving wire and gathered around the same. What happened thereafter is well described by the respondent himself in the following language: 'I was playing around there, and a lot of the other boys were playing around there, too; and they grabbed hold of the wire, and were hoisting themselves up a little ways; then they would jump down from it. They did that for a while; then I did that. Then I heard the bell ring, and I jumped down and started to run for the line, get in line, and I stepped in the middle of the coil. The wire wrapped around my leg; it brought me 'way up, about halfway up. Then it stopped a while, and then I went over the pole. I tried to hand onto the top, but I couldn't do it; it was too strong.' In the manner thus described, the respondent received the injuries for which he sues.

At the time of the accident, the employés of the city engaged in stringing the wires were all at some distance from the place of its occurrence; none of them, in fact, being close enough to be a witness thereto. The case was tried by the court sitting without a jury, and resulted in findings to the effect that the injury was the result of negligence on the part of the city. Damages were assessed in favor of the respondent in the sum of $800. The city appeals.

The appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment. It contends that it is without liability for the accident, for the reason that the injured respondent was using the street, at the time of the injury as a place in which to play, and...