Hurley v. City of Spokane

• Decision Date: 29 August 1923
• Docket Number: 17880.
• Citation: 126 Wash. 213,217 P. 1004
• Parties: HURLEY v. CITY OF SPOKANE et al. (two cases.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

217 P. 1004

126 Wash. 213

HURLEY v. CITY OF SPOKANE et al. (two cases.

No. 17880.

Supreme Court of Washington

August 29, 1923

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Huneke, Judge.

Actions by Gertrude Hurley and by F. V. Hurley against the City of Spokane and others. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Cannon & McKevitt, of Spokane, for appellants.

J. M Geraghty and Alex M. Winston, both of Spokane, for respondent City of Spokane.

MACKINTOSH J.

This appeal results from the granting of a nonsult at the close of the appellant's evidence, in an action for damages resulting from the overturning of an automobile on one of the hill streets of Spokane. The appellant and her brother, who was driving, occupied the front seat in the machine, in which, early on a December morning, they were proceeding to church. Their course took them down a steep and winding street which, at the time, was covered with a thin skin of ice, the result of foggy and freezing weather. The machine became unmanageable and skidded against a handrail dividing the portion of the street used as a roadway and the portion several feet lower used by a street car line. The claim of the appellant is that the city respondent was negligent (1) in allowing a mass of rock to remain at the head of the incline, obstructing the view of the descent; (2) in constructing the roadway on such a steep grade; (3) in failing to provide a higher curb between the roadway and the excavation; (4) in permitting four sharp curves within the short distance down the grade; (5) in allowing the surface of the roadway to slope downward to the top of the excavation (6) in constructing the crown of the roadway to swing first to one side and then to the other; (7) in not replacing the iron railing with one more substantial; (8) in not sanding the roadway on the morning of the accident; and (9) 'in not maintaining a suitable barrier to protect cars from going over the retaining wall of Bishop's Court and into the excavation,' in view of the combination of circumstances and conditions present.

When all the evidence is examined and the arguments analyzed, the last claim of negligence is the one upon which the appellant's right of action must rest, and, although many cases are called to our attention which argue for and against the liability of the city under these circumstances, and particularly the case of Swain v. Spokane, 94...