Haynes v. City of Seattle
| Decision Date | 28 December 1914 |
| Docket Number | 12132. |
| Citation | 145 P. 73,83 Wash. 51 |
| Parties | HAYNES v. CITY OF SEATTLE. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Boyd J. Tallman Judge.
Action by Dora Haynes against the City of Seattle. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Geo. B Cole and John Wesley Dolby, both of Seattle, for appellant.
Jas. E Bradford and Howard M. Findley, both of Seattle, for respondent.
This is an action for damages for personal injuries to the plaintiff caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant. Immediately after the jury was impaneled and shown to try the case, the defendant demurred to the complaint ore tenus, upon the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained, and, the plaintiff electing to stand upon her complaint and declining to plead further, a judgment was entered dismissing the action. This appeal followed.
It is alleged in the complaint that Crockett street, in the respondent city, was open for travel and traveled by the public; that there was a deep chasm in the street, and there were no lights or barriers to indicate its presence or to warn the public of the danger; that on the 30th day of March, 1913, about midnight, an automobile in which the appellant was riding as a passenger was driven into the chasm; and that she sustained serious and permanent injuries. The facts constituting the negligence of the city and the injuries which the appellant sustained are set forth in the complaint with great detail. The complaint shows that the respondent city was culpably negligent.
It is alleged that the appellant was delirious and mentally and physically incapacitated to transact business from the time she met her injury until the 4th day of June following; that on April 26th her father verified and presented a claim for damages in her behalf to the city; and that on the 5th day of June, and as soon as she was mentally and physically able to do so, she duly verified her claim for damages and filed it with the city. Both claims were rejected. The claim presented by the appellant's father is sufficient upon its face in every respect, except that it was verified by him alone. The appellant's claim complies with the conditions of the city charter except as to the time of its presentation. Section 29, art. 4, of the charter of the respondent city provides that all claims for damages against the city must be presented to the city council and filed with the clerk 'within thirty days after the time when such claim for damages accrued, * * * and be sworn to by the claimant.' Laws 1909, p. 181, provides that claims for damages sounding in tort against a city of the first class shall be presented to and filed with the city clerk or other proper officer of such city 'in compliance with valid charter provisions of such city'; that the claim must contain, 'in addition to the valid requirements of such city charter relating thereto,' a statement of certain facts; and that 'the provisions of this act shall be in addition to such charter provisions, and such claims for damages, in all other respects, shall conform to and comply with such charter provisions.' Section 3 declares that compliance with the provisions of the act is mandatory upon all claimants presenting and filing claims for damages.
The first contention is that the act is unconstitutional. We held to the contrary in Cole v. Seattle, 64 Wash. 1, 116 P. 257, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1166, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 344, and Collins v. Spokane, 64 Wash. 153, 116 P. 663, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 840.
It is argued that the statute is violative of section 37, art. 2, of the Constitution, which provides: 'No act shall ever be revised or amended by mere reference to its title, but the act revised or the section amended shall be set forth at full length'--in that it attempts to embody the charter provisions of cities of the first class by reference only. This contention cannot be upheld. Carstens v. De Sellem, 144 P. 934; Connor v. Seattle, 76 Wash. 37, 135 P. 617; Wolpers v. Spokane, 66 Wash. 633, 120 P. 113.
It is contended that, under the facts pleaded, the provisions of the city charter requiring a claim to be filed within 30 days is unreasonable, under the rule announced in Born v. Spokane, 27 Wash. 719, 68 P. 386; Ehrhardt v. Seattle, 33 Wash. 664, 74 P. 827; Hase v. Seattle, 51 Wash. 174, 98 P. 370, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 938; Jones v. Seattle, 51 Wash. 245, 98 P. 743; Wurster v. Seattle, 51 Wash. 654, 100 P. 143; and Scherrer v. Seattle, 52 Wash. 4, 100 P. 144.
We pointed out in Benson v. Hoquiam, 67 Wash. 90, 121 P. 58,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Seattle v. Lloyds' Plate Glass Ins. Co.
...as by the law, to all of the rights of their respective assured, and thenceforth the sole parties in interest. The case of Haynes v. Seattle, 83 Wash. 51, 145 P. 73, said by the plaintiff in error to be 'on all fours the case at bar,' we think not at all like the present one, for there a th......
-
Ames v. Department of Labor and Industries
... ... Wash. 518] In Born v. Spokane, 27 Wash. 719, 68 P ... 386, and Ehrhardt v. Seattle, 33 Wash. 664, 74 P ... 827, both arising in cities of the first class, it was held ... This, upon the manifest ... theory, later approved by this court, that such city cannot ... limit its liability by its own charter ... Thereafter ... That ... case was followed and the doctrine restated in Haynes v ... Seattle, 83 Wash. 51, 145 P. 73, which arose in Seattle ... after the ... ...
-
Kelleher v. Ephrata School Dist. No. 165, Grant County
...for their benefit. Allen v. Los Angeles City Board of Education, 1959, 173 Cal.App.2d 126, 343 P.2d 170; Haynes v. City of Seattle, 1914, 83 Wash. 51, 145 P. 73 (see Haynes v. City of Seattle, 1915, 87 Wash. 375, 151 P. 789, after the legislature relaxed the requirements). See Annotation 10......
-
Forseth v. City of Tacoma
... ... operating from the office of one Arthur E. Campbell, 511 ... Dexter Horton Building, Seattle 4, Washington; said Adjuster ... was the representative of the Insurance Company to which ... reference is made; on the occasion referred ... 432, ... 83 P. 1025; Cole v. City of Seattle, 64 Wash. 1, 116 ... P. 257, 34 L.R.A., N.S., 1166, Ann.Cas.1913A, 344; Haynes ... v. City of Seattle, 83 Wash. 51, 145 P. 73 (the result ... of the opinion, though not the opinion itself, in that case ... was ... ...