Parke v. City of Seattle

• Decision Date: 16 January 1894
• Citation: 8 Wash. 78,35 P. 594
• Parties: PARKE v. CITY OF SEATTLE. [1]
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

35 P. 594

8 Wash. 78

PARKE v. CITY OF SEATTLE. ^[1]

Supreme Court of Washington

January 16, 1894

Appeal from superior court, King county; Richard Osborn, Judge.

Action by James Parke against the city of Seattle for injuries to plaintiff's property by the negligent grading of a street in front thereof. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

For a full statement of the facts, see 31 P. 310.

Geo Donworth and Jas. B. Howe, for appellant.

Greene & Turner, for respondent.

SCOTT, J.

This case has once before been before this court, an appeal having been taken by the plaintiff from a judgment sustaining a demurrer interposed by the defendant. The case was reversed and remanded for trial. 5 Wash. 1, 31 P. 310, and 32 P. 82. A trial was had, and verdict and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and defendant now prosecutes this appeal.

The first point raised is with reference to proof admitted relating to the value of the premises which were damaged. The plaintiff was allowed to testify, over the objection of the defendant, that a man from Portland had offered him $14,000 for said property. The respondent contends that this testimony was admissible, although he admits that the majority of the courts of the various states have held otherwise. Some cases are cited by the respondent as favoring his contention; but none of them go to the extent that it would be necessary to go to sustain the admission of this testimony, and we are clearly of the opinion that its admission was erroneous. Hine v. Railroad Co., 132 N.Y. 477, 30 N.E. 985. It is further contended by the respondent that, if the court committed error in this particular, the testimony was not prejudicial to the defendant, on the ground that it is apparent that the jury attached no weight to it; but we think the record fails to show this, and consequently its admission was harmful error.

A second point is raised with reference to the liability of the city for its acts in the premises. This question was disposed of in the former appeal, and is therefore not entitled to consideration at this time.

It is further contended by appellant that the court erred in not giving certain requests to charge submitted by the defendant relating to contributory negligence upon the part of the plaintiff; but, as we view the case, there was nothing upon which a claim for contributory negligence could be based, and for that reason the court properly refused to give said instructions.

The further point is raised that the plaintiff could not maintain this action, for the reason that the real estate damaged was community property of the plaintiff and his wife, and that it was necessary for them to join in an action for damages...