Matthews v. City of Spokane
| Decision Date | 18 July 1908 |
| Citation | 96 P. 827,50 Wash. 107 |
| Parties | MATTHEWS et ux. v. CITY OF SPOKANE. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; E. H. Sullivan, Judge.
Personal injury action by A. M. Matthews and wife against the city of Spokane. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed. Plaintiffs recovered $2,000. Their evidence tended to show that the injured plaintiff was about 30 years old that her knee was sprained; that her injury is permanent being chronic synovitis; that she suffered on using the knee and had been compelled to wear a support on it; and that she had been incapacitated for work for seven months.
L. R Hamblen, F. D. Allen, and Harry A. Rhodes, for appellant.
Nuzum & Nuzum and Alex. M. Winston, for respondents.
On the morning of July 6, 1907, the plaintiff Mildred A. Matthews was walking along the sidewalk on one of the public streets of the city of Spokane, accompanied by her sister and her husband. The husband stepped on the end of a loose plank in the walk, and the opposite end flew up. Mrs. Mattews stepped into the hole thus left in the walk, and received the injury for which a recovery was sought in this action. The case was tried before a jury, and, from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, the defendant has appealed.
The appellant has assigned a great many errors in its brief, but all assignments relating to the same general subject have been discussed under a single head, and we will pursue the same course. One of the witnesses for the respondents produced at the trial two planks, a piece of stringer and some decayed pieces of boards, taken from the walk at or near the place of the accident some few days after the injury occurred. The admission of these several pieces in evidence, the refusal of the court to strike them from the record, and the refusal of the court to instruct the jury to disregard them and the testimony relating thereto form the subject of several of the assignments. The ground of objection to the admission of this testimony and the several rulings of the court in connection therewith is that the planks and other material were not sufficiently connected with the place of the injury to render them competent. We are inclined to the opinion that these several items of evidence were sufficiently connected with the place of the injury to render them competent, but that question we do not feel called upon to determine. The dangerous and defective condition of the sidewalk was testified to by numerous witnesses, including sidewalk inspectors of the city. This testimony was in no manner contradicted or disputed, as the appellant offered no testimony, except as to the nature and extent of the injury complained of. While there was no formal admission as to the defective and dangerous condition of the sidewalk, yet its condition can scarcely be said to have been an issue in the case, and we do not think that the several rulings complained of were prejudicial even if erroneous.
Several other assignments relate to the admission in evidence of reports made to the city by certain of its officers, showing the defective...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pockert, 8126-5-III
...P.2d 1192 (1974) and cases cited therein; see also Beglinger v. Shield, 164 Wash. 147, 152-54, 2 P.2d 681 (1931); Matthews v. Spokane, 50 Wash. 107, 110, 96 P. 827 (1908); State v. Duhaime, 29 Wash.App. 842, 857-58, 631 P.2d 964 (1981), review denied, 97 Wash.2d 1009 (1982); Newcomer v. Wey......
-
State v. Powell
...matter is not prejudicial error." Brown v. Quick Mix Co., 75 Wash.2d 833, 839, 454 P.2d 205 (1969) (citing Matthews v. City of Spokane, 50 Wash. 107, 96 P. 827 (1908)). ¶ 24 Defense counsel specifically agreed that the State could introduce testimony from Kincaid regarding Powell's drug use......
-
Loy v. Northern P. Ry. Co.
...16 Wash. 48, 47 P. 241; Walker v. McNeill, 17 Wash. 582, 50 P. 518; Hart Lumber Co. v. Rucker, 20 Wash. 383, 55 P. 320; Matthews v. Spokane, 50 Wash. 107, 96 P. 827. In case last above cited it was said: 'The refusal of the court to submit special findings or a special verdict to the jury i......
-
Brown v. Quick Mix Co., Division of Koehring Co.
...which it alleges it did not contest. The admission of evidence on an uncontested matter is not prejudicial error. Matthews v. City of Spokane, 50 Wash. 107, 96 P. 827 (1908); 5 Am.Jur.2d Appeal and Error § 800 The second contention referred to above, that the evidence was only admissible if......