Solastic Products Co. v. City of Seattle

• Citation: 258 P. 830,144 Wash. 691
• Decision Date: 22 August 1927
• Docket Number: 20491.
• Parties: SOLASTIC PRODUCTS CO. v. CITY OF SEATTLE.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

258 P. 830

144 Wash. 691

SOLASTIC PRODUCTS CO. v. CITY OF SEATTLE.

No. 20491.

Supreme Court of Washington

August 22, 1927

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Moriarty, Judge.

Action by the Solastic Products Company against the City of Seattle. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed with instructions.

Roberts & Skeel, O. R. Holcomb and Glen E. Wilson, all of Seattle for appellant.

Thomas J. L. Kennedy and J. Ambler Newton, both of Seattle, for respondent.

ASKREN J.

The plaintiff brought this action against the city of Seattle claiming that it is engaged in conducting a paint factory and business, at 3018 Ninth Avenue South, in that city; that prior to December 15, 1924, the city changed the grade of Ninth Avenue South by filling in the street with mud taken from Beacon Hill; that prior thereto the natural surface waters from Beacon Hill and the drainage therefrom ran into the tide flats and from there into Puget Sound; that the city in its sluicing operations performed the same in a negligent manner, in that it failed to make proper provisions for carrying away the surface waters and constructed a culvert for that purpose which was wholly inadequate; that the culvert was allowed to clog up and become completely obstructed, causing an overflow of surface water which ran onto the plaintiff's property and destroyed goods to its damage in the sum of $2,463.50.

A second cause of action also alleged damages in the sum of $607.91, and charged that south of plaintiff's plant there is a natural spring or creek which was caused, through the failure of the city to make necessary provision for taking care of the overflow of waters in the filling operations, to flow into plaintiff's property damaging it in the sum set out.

Upon trial the jury found for plaintiff on both causes of action, but the trial court entered judgment for the city notwithstanding the verdict upon the ground that the claims filed with the city council as required by ordinance were insufficient in this, that they did not 'accurately locate and describe the defect that caused the damage.'

The claims filed with the city council are conceded to be regular in every respect except in this one particular. For that reason we shall only set out that portion directly referring to the defect causing the injuries. The first claim recited:

'III. That on the 15th day of December, 1924, the city of Seattle was, and now is, engaged in sluicing and changing the grades of various and sundry streets on Beacon Hill in the city of Seattle, and with the dirt and mud removed in said sluicing operations was engaged in filling various and sundry low lands and tide lands in and near the claimant's factory at 3018 Ninth Avenue South in the city of Seattle.

'IV. That in the course of said sluicing and in the course of tearing down portions of the west slope of Beacon Hill, said city of Seattle had caused water to be pumped thereon in enormous quantities, and that said water and mud ran over, onto, and upon the property upon which claimant's factory is located; that thereupon claimant notified said city of Seattle that said factory was being flooded, and thereupon the said city of Seattle attempted to prevent the overflow of mud and water upon plaintiff's property.

'V. But the said city of Seattle on the 24th day of September, 1924, operated said sluicing operations in such a negligent and careless manner and without regard to the property of persons or corporations in or near the scene of said operations, and said city of Seattle failed to take proper care to divert said water and mud from claimant's property; that said paint factory and plant of claimant was on said 15th day of December, 1924, flooded with water and mud.

'VI. That as a result of the overflow of surface water and mud as hereinabove alleged, and as the result of the negligence of said city of Seattle and conduct of said sluicing operations, this claimant has been damaged. * * *'

The second claim recited:

'III. That for considerable time in the recent past the city of Seattle was engaged in sluicing and changing the grades on various and sundry streets on Beacon Hill in the City of Seattle, and with the dirt and mud removed in said sluicing operations was engaged in filling various and sundry low lands and tide lands in and near the claimant's paint factory in the city of Seattle.

'IV. That in the course of said sluicing and in the course of tearing down portions of the west portion of Beacon Hill said city of Seattle caused water to be pumped thereon in enormous quantities, and that said water and mud ran over, onto, and upon the property upon which claimant's factory is located; that thereupon claimant notified the said city of Seattle that said factory was being flooded, and thereupon said city of Seattle attempted to prevent the overflow of mud and water upon claimant's property.

'V. That the said city of Seattle failed to take proper and necessary steps to drain the water from claimant's property and on the 1st and 2d days of February, 1925, the rain and water collected around claimant's place of business in such quantities as to flow into claimant's property, damaging the plant and the paint factory and merchandise stored therein to the extent of $607.91.

'VI.

...