Hillman v. City of Seattle, 22921.
| Decision Date | 15 July 1931 |
| Docket Number | 22921. |
| Citation | 299 P. 514,163 Wash. 401 |
| Parties | HILLMAN v. CITY OF SEATTLE et al. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; E. H. Guie, Judge.
Action by C. Kirk Hillman, doing business as the C. Kirk Hillman Company, against the City of Seattle and others. From an order granting a new trial, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
A. C Van Soelen, E. I. Jones, Edwin H. Flick, and Herald A O'Neill, all of Seattle, for appellants.
Peyser & Bailey, of Seattle, for respondent.
Respondent as plaintiff, brought this action to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been caused to his office and warehouse building through the negligent construction of a sewer in a street upon which the building abutted.
A trial was had to a jury which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of one dollar. The defendants interposed a motion for judgment n. o. v., and the plaintiff moved for a new trial.
The trial court being of the opinion that the verdict of the jury was a finding in favor of the plaintiff on the question of liability, and that the evidence introduced warranted a verdict in a substantial amount, denied the motion for judgment n. o. v. and granted the motion for a new trial with the alternative option to the defendants to submit to the entry of a judgment against them and in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $1,500 in lieu of standing a new trial. This option being rejected, a formal order granting a new trial was entered, and the defendants have appealed therefrom.
The errors assigned are but two in number, involving the challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence at the close of plaintiff's case and the alternative order for a new trial; but these present every material fact in the case.
The voluminosity of the record, together with the elaborateness with which the case has been briefed and argued on the part of appellants, prevents a detailed discussion or even a complete setting out of all of the facts which seem to be considered pertinent. We must perforce give only a bare outline of the situation.
The building in question was erected in 1923, having a frontage of sixty feet on First avenue, in the city of Seattle, and running back 148 feet to Hanford street, with presumably a like frontage there. The land upon which it is situated is a part of the Seattle tidelands filled in twenty-five years or more ago. The soil is of a light, sandy nature. Because of the soil, extra large concrete footings wee placed under the building when it was erected, and other means were used to obtain a solid foundation and a sound and substantial building suitable for warehouse purposes. The plans and specifications for the building were approved by the building department of the city, which department, after the completion, approved the completed structure.
The building was used up to the time complained of, with satisfactory results. There was no noticeable settlement of any part and no cracks appeared except the natural cracks along the cold joints of the concrete floor.
Prior to March, 1929, the city had awarded a contract to appellant George Nelson & Co. to construct a trunk sewer in Hanford street, and the appellant C. & F. Teaming & Trucking Company became the subcontractor under Nelson & Co., who actually excavated the ditch for the sewer. Hanford street, where respondent's building abuts upon it, is 150 feet wide; but instead of placing the ditch in or near the center of the street, it was constructed along a line some 6 or 7 feet distant from the line of the respondent's building.
The construction work approached respondent's property about the middle of March, 1929, and at that time the ditch was open to a depth of some 6 or 8 feet, and no cribbing was placed therein; nor were there any supports placed to hold the earth adjoining and under the respondent's building and to prevent the natural effects of the removal of...
To continue reading
Request your trial