Klise v. City of Seattle, 34382
| Decision Date | 22 May 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 34382,34382 |
| Citation | 52 Wn.2d 412,325 P.2d 888 |
| Parties | Harry KLISE and June Klise, his wife, Respondents, v. The CITY OF SEATTLE, a municipal corporation, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
A. C. Van Soelen, William W. Brown, C. C. McCullough, Seattle, for appellant.
Edwards E. Merges, Seattle, for respondents.
Plaintiffs, husband and wife, respondents here, sued the city of Seattle for damages caused by an earth slide to their duplex house. From a judgment for the respondents on the verdict of a jury, the city of Seattle appeals.
Two of the five assignments of error deal with instructions. We find the exceptions to the instructions complained of inadequate under Rule of Pleading, Practice and Procedure 10, 34A Wash.2d 75, as amended, effective October 24, 1955, which requires that the exceptions 'shall be sufficiently specific to apprise the judge of the points of law or questions of fact in dispute.' The words of the exceptions are:
'I except to that, which reads as follows: * * *
'I except particularly to the last paragraph which reads: * * *
These exceptions totally fail of the purpose stated in the rule to advise the court of the specific points of law or fact involved. Barnes v. Labor Hall Ass'n, Wash., 319 P.2d 554; Traverso v. Pupo, Wash., 316 P.2d 462; Lunz v. Neuman, 48 Wash.2d 26, 290 P.2d 697; Peterson v. King County, 45 Wash.2d 860, 278 P.2d 774.
The other assignments of error all involve the same question, that is, is the evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict. It is familiar law that the evidence will be considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff with all reasonable inferences drawn in his favor.
By a special verdict, the jury found that the sewer broke because of excessive water pressure within the sewer pipe, that the removal of the toe of the slope had no part in the slide, and that the sewer broke before the slide. There is ample evidence in the record from which the jury could resolve all of those questions in favor of the plaintiffs. No useful purpose would be served by restating it. The sewer was constructed in 1911, and it was in the exclusive control of the city. Under our recent decision in Kind v. City of Seattle, 50 Wash.2d 485, 312 P.2d 811, 814, the rule is:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Osborn v. Chapman
... ... Prince, Seattle, for appellants ... Wright & Wright, Seattle, for ... Klise v. Seattle, 52 Wash.2d ... 412, 325 P.2d 888; Cauble v. Dahl, 48 Wash.2d ... 642, 60 P.2d 720; Drainage Dist. No. 2 of Snohomish County v. City of Everett, 171 Wash. 471, 18 P.2d 53, 88 A.L.R. 123 ... ...
-
Smith v. Seibly, 38891
...Co., 68 Wash.2d 835, 416 P.2d 92 (1966); Burlingham-Meeker Co. v. Thomas, 58 Wash.2d 79, 360 P.2d 1033 (1961); Klise v. City of Seattle, 52 Wash.2d 412, 325 P.2d 888 (1958). Tested by the exception taken, the instructions given were not erroneous. A married minor, 18 years of age, who has s......
-
State v. Hinkley
...October 24, 1955. We cannot consider them. Cauble v. Dahl, 1956 48 Wash.2d 440, 442, 294 P.2d 416, and cases cited; Klise v. City of Seattle, Wash., 325 P.2d 888, and cases cited. In assignment of error No. 11, appellant alleges the court failed to administer the oath individually to the wi......
-
Cowan v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. R.
...to advise the court of the specific points of law involved (State v. Hinkley, 1958, 52 Wash.2d 415, 325 P.2d 889; Klise v. City of Seattle, 1958, 52 Wash.2d 412, 325 P.2d 888; Cauble v. Dahl, 1956, 48 Wash.2d 440, 294 P.2d 416), and this is particularly applicable to the failure to give req......