Kind v. City of Seattle
Decision Date | 27 June 1957 |
Docket Number | No. 33897,33897 |
Citation | 312 P.2d 811,50 Wn.2d 485 |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Parties | M. Maurice KIND and Saida Kind, his wife, and M. Maurice Kind, doing business as M. Kind Novelty Company, et al., Respondents, v. The CITY OF SEATTLE, a municipal corporation, Appellants. |
A. C. Van Soelen, C. C. McCullough, George H. Holt, Corporation Counsel, Seattle, for appellants.
Solie M. Ringold, Hoof, Shucklin & Harris, George A. Meagher, Moriarty, Olson & Campbell, Jack Steinberg, Clarke, Clarke & Albertson, Seattle, for respondents.
The plaintiffs in these actions own and operate business properties in the vicinity of First Avenue South and Yesler Way, in Seattle. On January 17, 1954, a twenty-inch cast iron water main owned, maintained and operated by the defendant city burst at the intersection of First Avenue and Yesler Way and flooded the properties of the plaintiffs. Their suits against the city were consolidated and tried to the court, which found that the negligence of the city was not proved. The cause of the break of the water main was not shown. The court concluded that the city was liable, regardless of fault, and entered judgments in favor of the plaintiffs.
The case is before this court on the findings of fact. According to these findings, the pipe in question was laid in the year 1890, and was designed to last one hundred years; it was manufactured according to the best known engineering methods; was installed in accordance with good engineering practices; was laid upon an adequate foundation in original ground; and was subsequently covered over with a fill to a depth of approximately 6.8 feet. Portions of the pipe were inspected whenever they were exposed for other purposes and were found to be in reasonably good condition. The water was shut off as soon as possible after the break occurred. The pipe was strong enought to stand the pressure exerted upon it at the time of the break and was within the standard specifications. The cause of the break was unknown.
The finding of fact most pertinent to this appeal reads as follows:
It is the contention of the appellant that the doctrine enunciated in Rylands v. Fletcher, L.R. 1 Exch. 265, decided in 1866, and affirmed two years later in Fletcher v. Rylands, L.R. 3 H.L. 330, upon which the trial court based its decision should not be applied to the facts of this case. The defendant in that case had caused a reservoir to be constructed on his land to provide water for his mill. The water seeped through an abandoned mine shaft into the plaintiff's mine, causing damage. Justice Blackburn, speaking for the court of Exchequer Chamber, said:
This court has applied the doctrine in cases where harm has befallen a plaintiff as a result of blasting operations carried on by the defendant. Foster v. Preston Mill Co., 44 Wash.2d 440, 268 P.2d 645 ( ); Patrick v. Smith, 75 Wash. 407, 134 P. 1076, 48 L.R.A.,N.S., 740; Schade Brewing Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & Puget Sound R. Co., 79 Wash. 651, 140 P. 897. We have found no case in this jurisdiction where liability has been imposed upon a municipal corporation, regardless of fault, for damage resulting from a broken water main. The respondents call our attention to the case of Bridgeman-Russell Co. v. City of Duluth, 158 Minn. 509, 197 N.W. 971, 972, wherein the doctrine of Rylands v. Fletcher, supra, was applied in favor of a plaintiff whose property had been damaged as a result of a bursting water main. In choosing to align itself with the courts which have approved the doctrine (admittedly a minority), the court in that case said:
Those courts which oppose the application of the doctrine generally adopt the theory that the imposition of liability without fault discourages enterprise and the most beneficial use of property.
Whether the doctrine of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
C. C. Anderson Stores Co. v. Boise Water Corp.
...the circumstances, is a reasonable one and is justified in this case. O'Connor v. Black, 80 Idaho 96, 326 P.2d 376; Kind v. City of Seattle, 50 Wash.2d 485, 312 P.2d 811; Stevens-Salt Lake City, Inc. v. Wong, 123 Utah 309, 259 P.2d 586; Esberg-Gunst Cigar Co. v. City of Portland, 34 Or. 282......
-
Lubin v. Iowa City
...However, most of the broken water main cases have been founded upon negligence. Res ipsa loquitur was resorted to in Kind v. City of Seattle, 50 Wash.2d 485, 312 P.2d 811; Anderson Stores Co. v. Boise Water Corp., 84 Idaho 355, 372 P.2d 752; Koch Bros. Bag Co. v. Kansas City (Mo. 1958) 315 ......
-
Adam Hat Stores, Inc. v. Kansas City
...of New York, 1940, 174 Misc. 967, 21 N.Y.S.2d 800; Same case, 1941, 287 N.Y. 108, 38 N.E.2d 455, 153 A.L.R. 1122; Kind v. City of Seattle, 1957, 50 Wash.2d 485, 312 P.2d 811. Holding the rule not applicable are: Philadelphia Ritz Carlton Co. v. City of Philadelphia, 1925, 282 Pa. 301, 127 A......
-
John T. Arnold Associates, Inc. v. City of Wichita
...its freedom from negligence to the jury. Again, unlike the instant case, the cause of the break was unknown. In Kind v. Seattle, 50 Wash.2d 485, 312 P.2d 811 (1957), the cause of a break in a water main was not known and accordingly, res ipsa loquitur was properly invoked. In Kind the water......