Mathis v. Swanson, No. 37348
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Writing for the Court | OTT; ROSELLINI |
| Citation | 413 P.2d 662,68 Wn.2d 424 |
| Parties | Daniel MATHIS, a minor, by his Guardian ad Litem, Ethel Mathis, Appellant, v. Carl O. SWANSON and Ruth E. Swanson, his wife, and Charles H. Swanson and Helen R. Swanson, his wife, doing business as Swanson Brothers, a partnership, Swanson's Food of Aberdeen, Inc., a corporation, Dan Henry and Jessie M. Henry, his wife, and Robert G. Henry and Ethel M. Henry, his wife, doing business as Lamb Construction Co., a partnership, Respondents. |
| Docket Number | No. 37348 |
| Decision Date | 21 April 1966 |
Page 424
Mathis, Appellant,
v.
Carl O. SWANSON and Ruth E. Swanson, his wife, and Charles
H. Swanson and Helen R. Swanson, his wife, doing business as
Swanson Brothers, a partnership, Swanson's Food of Aberdeen,
Inc., a corporation, Dan Henry and Jessie M. Henry, his
wife, and Robert G. Henry and Ethel M. Henry, his wife,
doing business as Lamb Construction Co., a partnership, Respondents.
Page 425
Gladys Phillips, Aberdeen, for appellant.
Schumacher & Charette, John W. Schumacher, Aberdeen, Kahin, Horswill, keller, Rohrback, Waldo & Moren, David F. Hiscock, Seattle, for respondents.
OTT, Judge.
This action, predicated upon the attractive nuisance doctrine, was commenced by Ethel Mathis, as guardian ad litem for her son, Daniel Mathis, aged 13, who was injured while on the property of the defendants, when his brother, walking on a steel I beam, caused it to fall on Daniel's foot. The defendants were the owners of Swanson's Market in Aberdeen and the owners of the Lamb Construction Company, which was in charge of remodeling the market.
The defendants were granted summary judgment of dismissal, and plaintiff appeals.
[413 P.2d 663] The facts, as shown by the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, and photographs, are substantially as follows:
During the remodeling project, five carrier loads of steel I beams were delivered to the premises on April 26, 1961, and placed near the public sidewalk. No barricade was placed between the I beams and the sidewalk. Four of the I beams were laid parallel on carrier blocks and rested on their flanges, in an upright position. Each beam weighed 1,870 pounds, was 34 feet long, with 7 1/2-inch flanges and and an 18-inch web between the flanges.
Page 426
Sunday afternoon, April 30, 1961, Daniel Mathis and his two brothers, aged 10 and 11, were walking on the sidewalk adjacent to the market and noticed the steel girders on the premises. While Daniel was walking on the premises, between the north wall of the market and the four I beams resting on their flanges, his 11-year-old brother walked upon the flange of the I beam nearest Daniel, causing it to tip and fall, injuring Daniel's foot.
In granting respondents' motion for summary judgment, the trial court held, as a matter of law, that the doctrine of attractive nuisance was not applicable to these facts. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ochampaugh v. City of Seattle, No. 45492
...Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, 5 Wash.2d 599, 105 P.2d 838 (1940), and since restated in Mathis v. Swanson, 68 Wash.2d 424, 413 P.2d 662 (1966), Holland v. Niemi, [588 P.2d 1354] 55 Wash.2d 85, 345 P.2d 1106 (1959), and McDermott v. Kaczmarek, 2 Wash.App. 643, 469 P.2d 191 (1) Th......
-
State v. Jensen, No. 33920-0-II (Wash. App. 1/3/2007), No. 33920-0-II
...73 Wn.2d 692, 694-95, 440 P.2d 485 (1968). Motions to suppress made at the close of the State's case are clearly untimely. Baxter, 68 Wn.2d at 424. After the State rested, Jensen moved to dismiss, asserting that trial testimony did not support admission of the evidence. But his motion is a ......
-
State v. Newman, No. 30690-5-II (WA 11/9/2004), No. 30690-5-II
...does not object to evidence until after the State has rested, the motion is untimely, even if it affects a constitutional right. Baxter, 68 Wn.2d at 424; State v. Burnley, 80 Wn. App. 571, 572, 910 P.2d 1294 (1996). Newman did not object to the admission of the methamphetamine evidence at t......
-
Gabel v. Koba, No. 45--40295--1
...to be submitted to the jury. Our cases of Brannon v. Harmon, 56 Wash.2d 826, 355 P.2d 792 (1960) and Mathis v. Swanson, 68 Wash.2d 424, 413 P.2d 662 (1966) are illustrative of the fact that the application of the law of attractive nuisance to the facts in the individual case is a treacherou......
-
Ochampaugh v. City of Seattle, No. 45492
...Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, 5 Wash.2d 599, 105 P.2d 838 (1940), and since restated in Mathis v. Swanson, 68 Wash.2d 424, 413 P.2d 662 (1966), Holland v. Niemi, [588 P.2d 1354] 55 Wash.2d 85, 345 P.2d 1106 (1959), and McDermott v. Kaczmarek, 2 Wash.App. 643, 469 P.2d 191 (1) Th......
-
State v. Jensen, No. 33920-0-II (Wash. App. 1/3/2007), No. 33920-0-II
...73 Wn.2d 692, 694-95, 440 P.2d 485 (1968). Motions to suppress made at the close of the State's case are clearly untimely. Baxter, 68 Wn.2d at 424. After the State rested, Jensen moved to dismiss, asserting that trial testimony did not support admission of the evidence. But his motion is a ......
-
State v. Newman, No. 30690-5-II (WA 11/9/2004), No. 30690-5-II
...does not object to evidence until after the State has rested, the motion is untimely, even if it affects a constitutional right. Baxter, 68 Wn.2d at 424; State v. Burnley, 80 Wn. App. 571, 572, 910 P.2d 1294 (1996). Newman did not object to the admission of the methamphetamine evidence at t......
-
Gabel v. Koba, No. 45--40295--1
...to be submitted to the jury. Our cases of Brannon v. Harmon, 56 Wash.2d 826, 355 P.2d 792 (1960) and Mathis v. Swanson, 68 Wash.2d 424, 413 P.2d 662 (1966) are illustrative of the fact that the application of the law of attractive nuisance to the facts in the individual case is a treacherou......