Muskatell v. Queen City Const. Co.
| Citation | 100 P.2d 380,3 Wn.2d 200 |
| Decision Date | 16 March 1940 |
| Docket Number | 27838. |
| Parties | MUSKATELL v. QUEEN CITY CONST. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
Department 1.
Department 1.
Action by Morris Muskatell against Queen City Construction Company a corporation, to recover damages to real property. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Superior Court, King
Stevenson & Gershon, of Seattle, for appellant.
Ballinger Hutson & Boldt, of Seattle, for respondent.
This action was brought to recover damages to real property. The cause was tried to the court without a jury, and resulted in findings of fact from which it was concluded that there could be no recovery against the defendant. From the judgment entered dismissing the action, the plaintiff appeals.
No bill of exceptions or statement of facts has been brought to this court, and the facts, as found by the trial court, will be summarized only in so far as it appears to be necessary to present the question here for determination.
The appellant was the owner of a property which abutted upon the west side of a street known as East Marginal Way, in the city of Seattle, upon which property there had been erected a one-story building.
Sometime during the month of June, 1938, the city of Seattle entered into a written contract with the respondent, the Queen City Construction Company, to construct a trunk sewer extending along East Marginal Way, and to make the necessary excavations therefor, in accordance with the plans and specifications furnished by the city. Pursuant to the contract, the respondent entered upon the work. The excavation cavation necessary for the laying of the sewer pipe was eight feet from the west margin of the street. In front of the appellant's building, the excavation was eighteen feet deep. When the water was pumped from the excavation, sand and water from under the building ran through what is called the 'sheet piling,' with the result that the soil and earth under the building subsided causing damage to the concrete floor therein.
The city of Seattle was not made a party to the action. It is expressly found that the work was done in exact accord with the plans and specifications of the city, and under its supervision. It is admitted by the appellant that the contractor was in no manner negligent in his performance of the work.
The appellant contends that, inasmuch as the city, prior to contracting for the work done, did not bring eminent domain proceedings to ascertain the damages, the contractor is liable therefor, even though not negligent. Attention is called to section 16 of Article I of the constitution of this state, which provides that no private property shall be taken or damaged for public or private use without just compensation having first been made; but that provision is not here...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lobozzo v. Adam Eidemiller, Inc.
...A.2d, pages 891--892: 'The rule could not be otherwise. As recognized by the Supreme Court of Washington in Muskatell v. Queen City Construction Co., 3 Wash.2d 200, 100 P.2d 380, 381, if the rule were otherwise, 'the bidding on contracts with a (governmental instrumentality) would be somewh......
-
Glade v. Dietert
...of the work contracted for, and not for the result of work performed according to the contract.' Cf. Muskatell v. Queen City Construction Co., 3 Wash.2d 200, 100 P.2d 380. We have found no case, nor has one been cited, holding a contractor liable under such Respondents insist that both the ......
-
Beaver Valley Power Co. v. National Engineering & Contracting Co.
...also appeared to articulate another justification: As recognized by the Supreme Court of Washington in Muskatell v. Queen City Construction Co., 3 Wash.2d 200, 100 P.2d 380, 381, if the rule [of limited liability for contractors] were otherwise, "the bidding on contracts with a [governmenta......
-
Sager v. County of Spokane, No. 22438-4-III (WA 2/24/2005)
...and specifications of the city, the contractor is not liable for damages in the absence of negligence. Muskatell v. Queen City Constr. Co., 3 Wn.2d 200, 202, 100 P.2d 380 (1940). Ms. Sager contends that K.C. Construction had an independent duty to reasonably anticipate dangerous conditions ......