Muskatell v. City of Seattle
Decision Date | 25 August 1941 |
Docket Number | 28337. |
Citation | 10 Wn.2d 221,116 P.2d 363 |
Parties | MUSKATELL v. CITY OF SEATTLE. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Action by Morris Muskatell against the City of Seattle, a municipal corporation, to recover damages to plaintiff's building claimed to have resulted from construction of a sewer by defendant in front of plaintiff's property. From an order granting defendant's motion for new trial after a jury had returned a verdict for plaintiff, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed with instructions.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; William J. Wilkins, judge.
Stevenson & Gershon, of Seattle, for appellant.
A. C. Van Soelen, John A. Logan, and Tom M. Alderson, all of Seattle, for respondent.
This is an appeal by plaintiff, Morris Muskatell, from an order made and entered by the superior court for King county, granting the motion of defendant, City of Seattle, for a new trial, upon the specific ground that the court erred in giving instructions Nos. 7, 8 and 9, and in refusing to give defendant's requested instructions Nos. 4, 6, 7 and that portion of No. 8 not contained in instruction No. 10 as given.
This action, predicated upon § 16, of article I, of the state constitution, was instituted by plaintiff against the city of Seattle, to recover damages to plaintiff's building, claimed to have resulted from the construction of a sewer, by the city, in front of plaintiff's property.
The complaint alleges that prior to June, 1938, the city determined that it would construct a trunk sewer on East Marginal Way, extending along the westerly side of the street; that pursuant to such determination, the city retained the Queen City Construction Company to do the necessary excavation and construction work; that on or about June 14, 1938, the Construction Co. commenced work in front of plaintiff's property; that this work was all done and performed under the direct supervision, inspection and direction of the city's engineer; that as the proximate result of the construction of the sewer, a subsidence in the soil and earth upon plaintiff's property and beneath his building occurred, resulting in the sinking of the concrete floor in his building and in the cracking and twisting thereof.
The amended answer admitted that the work was done under the direct supervision, inspection and direction of the city, and denied the allegations as to the damage, if any, to plaintiff's building, by the construction of the sewer.
As a first affirmative defense, defendant alleged that the work was done in accordance with the approved and up-to-date engineering and sanitary practices.
It is alleged in the second affirmative defense that the injuries, if any, sustained by plaintiff were caused by his own contributory negligence, in that his building was constructed on soil that was largely of filled-in sand, and is located on the old tideland area, which is subject to the inflow and outflow of the tidal waters and underground percolating waters daily; that plaintiff, knowing of this condition, erected his building without proper foundation, and after having erected his building, plaintiff further aggravated the improper construction by storing great quantities of canned salmon upon the floors, and driving heavily loaded trucks over the floor, all of which caused the building to subside and cracks to appear in the floor; that all of these acts were the proximate cause of the subsidence of the building and the damage claimed by plaintiff.
Third, fourth and fifth affirmative defenses were also set up in the answer, but in view of the action taken by the trial court, the allegations contained in those affirmative defenses are not material herein.
The material facts may be stated as follows: Plaintiff's property, a one-story frame building, sheeted with corrugated iron, and used as a fish reconditioning warehouse, is located on the tide flats. The land upon which the building stands is similar to that throughout the entire tideland area. About six feet below the surface, the soil, composed mostly of sand, is impregnated with what is described as percolating waters. This water originates from rainfall upon the surrounding area, especially on Beacon hill, and seeps underground towards the Duwamish river and the sound.
Under plaintiff's property, as well as under other property in the district, is a water table, which rises when the tide is in, and lowers when the tide is out. When the tide is in, it serves as a dam to check the flow of this ground water, causing the ground to swell, and as the tide goes out and this underground water is allowed to flow, the ground subsides. This ground water is fresh water, and not tidal waters. Engineers and contractors, testifying for plaintiff, stated that while the sewer was being constructed in front of plaintiff's property, they saw sand, mud and water coming into the sewer excavation through the cribbing at the side of the excavation, and coming in from the bottom of the trench from under plaintiff's building.
Plaintiff and other witnesses testifying in his behalf stated that the cracks in the floor were not there prior to the construction of the sewer, and these witnesses further testified that in their opinion, the sinking of the floor, the cracks in the floor, and the injury to the building, for which damages were asked, were caused by the sand, silt and water which was forced out from under plaintiff's building into the sewer trench.
Mr. Lennox, one of the operators of the reconditioning plant, testified that while the work on the sewer was progressing, he observed a settling of the building and the development of cracks in the floor; that he notified the engineer in charge of construction, and the engineer inspected the damage and informed him that he would take care of the matter at once.
Mr. Klaeboe, another of the operators of the reconditioning plant, testified that he notified the construction people of the damage; that he saw the sewer during construction, and that sand, silt and water were entering the sewer trench through the sidewalls and from the bottom; that the city had a large pump in the trench which pumped this sand, silt and water out of the ditch.
The city admits that in digging the sewer trench they affected the underground water, and withdrew the same to some extent from the surrounding area.
Defendant's witnesses testified that there was very little, if any, sand or silt coming into the trench through the cribbing driven along the sides of the ditch, but that water was coming up from the bottom of the ditch. One witness testified that only water was coming into the ditch. The expert witnesses for the city testified to the effect that the trench in front of plaintiff's property was dug in accordance with good engineering practice, and that there is no practical method of digging a trench in ground of the nature here encountered, without having water in the bottom thereof.
Mr. Breen, engineer in charge of this work for the city, testified that the ditch was seventeen feet deep; that they struck water at about six feet, and for the remaining eleven feet they were in wet soil and water all the time.
Mr. Sylliaasen, an engineer of long experience, testifying for the city, stated that in his opinion '* * * the cracks in the warehouse floor were caused by settlement in the sand below this structure due to the fact that there was not a foundation under the building which will prevent settlement and that the load which caused the settlement was the dead weight of the building plus loads placed on the building on the floor at various times in years gone past.'
This witness further testified that in his opinion, based on his examination of the building and known facts in engineering, this building settled and cracked from the day it was constructed.
The trial court gave, among others, instructions Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10, which read, respectively, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Friendswood Development Co. v. Smith-Southwest Industries, Inc.
...44 N.E. 344 (1896); Bjorvatn v. Pacific Mechanical Construction, Inc., 77 Wash.2d 563, 464 P.2d 432 (1970); Muskatell v. City of Seattle, 10 Wash.2d 221, 116 P.2d 363 (1941); Farnandis v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 41 Wash. 486, 84 P. 18 (1906); 1 Am.Jur.2d Adjoining Landowners § 80 (1962); 2 ......
-
Dexter Horton Bldg. Co. v. King County
... ... B. Gray ... Warner and Lloyd W. Shorett, both of Seattle, for appellant ... Smith ... Troy and R. G. Sharpe, both of Olympia, amici ... between Second ... [116 P.2d 509] ... and Third avenues in the city of Seattle. The owner of that ... building, upon denial of its petition by the County Board ... ...
-
Finley v. Teeter Stone, Inc.
...a deprivation of lateral support. See Prete v. Cray, 49 R.I. 209, 141 A. 609, 59 A.L.R. 1241 (1928) and Muskatell v. City of Seattle, 10 Wash.2d 221, 116 P.2d 363 (1941). It is our opinion that there is a vital distinction between all of the cases of lateral support where some substance, wh......
-
State v. Williams
... ... appellant ... Nicholas ... A. Maffeo, of Seattle, for respondents ... DRIVER, ... Justice ... This is ... Authority, to acquire the right of way for a highway tunnel, ... in the city of Seattle, in connection with the construction ... of the Lake Washington concrete pontoon ... v. Skagit County, 4 ... Wash.2d 152, 102 P.2d 679; Muskatell v. Seattle, ... Wash., 116 P.2d 363; Snavely v. Goldendale, [12 ... Wn.2d 13] Wash., ... ...