Murphy v. City of Tacoma
Decision Date | 27 September 1962 |
Docket Number | No. 35748,35748 |
Citation | 60 Wn.2d 603,374 P.2d 976 |
Parties | Don D. MURPHY and Elizabeth L. Murphy, husband and wife, Appellants, v. The CITY OF TACOMA, a Municipal Corporation, Respondents. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Burton W. Lyon, Jr., Tacoma, for appellants.
Marshall McCormick, Paul J. Nolan, Quinby R. Bingham, Tacoma, for respondents.
This is an appeal from an order granting the city's motion for judgment n. o. v. and striking the jury's awards totalling $10,000 for mental anguish, suffering, discomfort, annoyance and inconvenience in three consolidated actions for damages to appellants' real property, alleged to have been caused by the acts of the city performed in connection with a public improvement described in this opinion.
This appeal is stated to be 'a consolidated appeal on a short record.' The appropriateness of this characterization may seem questionable in view of the fact that the record contains transcripts of 376 pages, a statement of facts exceeding 1,000 pages (with 78 exhibits referred to therein), and two briefs of approximately 100 pages each (containing 85 citations of prior decisions of this court exclusive of those from other jurisdictions).
In an endeavor to intelligibly set forth the rather involved factual pattern, we have inserted herein a map of the area involved which is based upon Exhibit 35.
Appellants are (or were at the time of the entry of the decree of appropriation in the condemnation proceeding hereinafter mentioned) the owners of four parcels of land in Pierce County located about three miles south of Eatonville. For convenience, they are numbered from 1 to 4, inclusive.
Parcel No. 1 consists of 53 acres of unimproved land (partially cleared) purchased in 1951, of which about nine acres were damaged by the public improvement made by the city later described herein.
Parcel No. 2 was purchased in 1948 and consists of over 500 acres, which is occupied by appellants as their home. It is improved by their residence and outbuildings. Between this property and the scene of the city's operations is a ten-acre tract belonging to the city of Eatonville.
Parcel No. 3 consists of 65 acres of unimproved and partially cleared land which was purchased in 1959 for $1,625 after appellants had filed a claim against the city for damages allegedly caused by the slide to other parcels. About four acres of this property was claimed to be damaged by the city's acts.
Parcel No. 4, consisting of 40 acres, was also purchased in 1959 after a claim and a suit based on damages to other property had been filed against the city. It lies between Parcel No. 2 and the slide area.
The three suits which were consolidated for trial arose as the result of a slide on a public road known as the Eatonville-Alder cut-off highway in Pierce County. In 1943, the city constructed a hydro-electric project on the Nisqually River, which flooded the existing road. The city consequently undertook to relocate the highway and to build a concrete overpass over certain railroad tracks (which were also relocated because of the flooding). To the north of this overpass, it was necessary to make a substantial fill to enable traffic to pass over this overpass.
The concrete overpass and the fill constituting the north approach thereto were constructed by the city under an agreement with Pierce County. The road was opened for public travel in 1944. Thereafter, the fill started to settle and the city, from time to time, placed many yards of material on the fill in an attempt to keep the surface of the road up to its original grade. During the next four years, the city placed an estimated 7,000 to 10,000 cubic yards of material in the fill. Between 1948 and the time of trial (April, 1960), 36,320 yards were added. This latter amount was more material than was originally put in the fill when it was first made.
The agreement between the city and Pierce County contemplated that the city would convey to the county the concrete viaduct and its approaches, but when the city, in 1952, tendered performance, the county commissioners declined to accept them for twenty reasons stated in their letter to the city.
The court entered a pretrial order limiting the issues, which is described in appellants' brief as follows:
We do not deem it necessary to detail the conflicting theories of the parties as to what caused this continuing sliding of the fill nor the amount of the physical damages which appellants' various parcels sustained on account of such sliding.
In view of the only action of the trial court which is stated by appellants in their single assignment of error (quoted below) to be a ground for reversal, we will confine our discussion to the jury's answers to the special interrogatories, its verdicts, and the granting of the city's motion for judgment n. o. v. as to the awarding of the two items for mental anguish, suffering, annoyance, discomfort, and inconvenience.
Upon cross-examination, Don Murphy testified concerning his personal damages as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Repin v. State, 34049-0-III
...to determine whether a bystander may recover for emotional distress caused by the defendant's negligence. Murphy v. City of Tacoma, 60 Wash.2d 603, 620-21, 374 P.2d 976 (1962). With the adoption of this criterion, the plaintiff need not establish physical impact to her body in order to reco......
-
Charlie Stuart Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Smith
...Co. (1968), 251 Or. 310, 445 P.2d 590; Phillips v. Cordes Towing Serv. (1957), 50 Wash.2d 545, 313 P.2d 377; Murphy v. City of Tacoma (1962), 60 Wash.2d 603, 374 P.2d 976; Annot., 28 A.L.R.2d 1070, 1077 (1953); 25 C.J.S. Damages § 68 (1966); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 905, Comment d (T......
-
Grimsby v. Samson
...person or security, or a direct possibility thereof. Smith v. Rodene, 69 Wash.2d 482, 418 P.2d 741 (1966); Murphy v. Tacoma, 60 Wash.2d 603, 374 P.2d 976 (1962). However, in Schurk v. Christensen, 80 Wash.2d 652, 497 P.2d 937 (1972), we indicated our willingness to reexamine this rule and t......
-
Wilson v. Key Tronic Corp.
...former "zone of danger" test, a showing of actual or possible direct physical invasion was generally necessary. Murphy v. Tacoma, 60 Wash.2d 603, 620-21, 374 P.2d 976 (1962). Under that test, pollution of a household water supply was regarded as a physical invasion of the occupant's person.......
-
Balancing the Statute of Limitations and the Discovery Rule: Some Victims of Incestuous Abuse Are Denied Access to Washington Courts-tyson v. Tyson
...truck approaching her home, feared safety of young son in yard and suffered miscarriage). 96. Murphy v. Tacoma, 60 Wash. 2d 603, 620-21, 374 P.2d 976, 987-88 97. Hunsley v. Giard, 87 Wash. 2d 424, 433, 553 P.2d 1096,1101-02 (1976) (plaintiff's home struck by car outside of plaintiff's immed......