State v. Carroll
| Decision Date | 02 February 1917 |
| Docket Number | 13694. |
| Citation | 94 Wash. 531,162 P. 593 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. FLETCHER et al. v. CARROLL, City Comptroller. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; John S. Jurey Judge.
Separate applications for mandamus by the State, on the relation of Stephen Fletcher and Josiah E. Rhoads, against Harry W Carroll, City Comptroller and ex officio City Clerk of the City of Seattle. From judgments directing the issuance of the writs of mandate, respondent appeals. Reversed and remanded with instructions to deny the writs.
Hugh M. Caldwell, Walter F. Meier, and J. A Newton, all of Seattle, for appellant.
E. L. Skeel and W. M. Whitney, both of Seattle (J. J. Geary, of Seattle, of counsel), for respondent Fletcher.
Elias A. Wright and Sam A. Wright, both of Seattle, for respondent Rhoads.
On October 27, 1915, and for some years prior thereto, the respondents Stephen Fletcher and Josiah E. Rhoads were employed in the lighting department of the city of Seattle as lineman's helpers, subject to the civil service rules of the city. On the day named the respondents were engaged, under the direction of a foreman appointed by the city to superintend the work, in stretching a wire from the city's electric supply line to the dwelling house of a resident of the city. In the prosecution of the work it was necessary to pass the wire underneath and near a supply line of the Seattle Electric Company. Through some means the wire came in contact with the electric company's line, suffering the current which the supply wire was carrying to pass through the wire while the respondents had hold of it. The result was severe burns and injuries to the respondents, the one losing a leg and the other an arm by reason thereof.
The respondents conceived that their injuries were caused because of the fault and negligence of the city and its superior agents and servants, that the city was liable in damages therefor, and severally presented claims against the city for damages under the laws applicable in such cases; the respondent Fletcher claiming damages in the sum of $25,000, and the respondent Rhoads claiming damages in the sum of $20,000. After the presentation of the claims to the city, the city council referred them to its finance committee. This committee, after investigation, recommended that the claimants be allowed the sum of $3,500 in full settlement, and, after the respondents had signified their willingness to accept the sums on the conditions imposed, ordinances were introduced and passed directing the city comptroller to draw warrants to the claimants on the city's light fund for the respective amounts, upon their filing releases of further claims satisfactory to the legal department of the city. These ordinances were vetoed by the mayor of the city and returned to the city council, with the reasons for such vetoes. The city council thereupon passed the same over the vetoes, the requisite number of councilmen required by the city charter voting therefor.
Upon demand being made on the city comptroller by the respective respondents for warrants in accordance with the ordinances, that officer, acting on the advice of the legal department of the city, refused to issue the same, whereupon proceedings in mandamus were begun in the superior court of King county by the respondents to enforce their issuance. Issues were framed which suggested the contentions of the several parties, and the proceedings consolidated and tried as one proceeding. The trial court directed the issuance of a writ of mandate, and from its judgment and order the comptroller appeals.
Among the several affirmative defenses set forth by the city comptroller was a defense founded upon a provision of the city charter and the Workmen's Compensation Act (Rem. Code, § 6604--1 et seq.). It was contended that these afforded the sole and only remedy against the city by a civil service employé who was injured while in the discharge of his duty, and that such remedy did not justify the payment of a lump sum to the employé, such as was attempted by the city council in the present instance. The respondents, however, contended, and the trial court held, that the Workmen's Compensation Act was not applicable to the situation; that the provision of the city charter must be considered as standing alone and without regard to the act mentioned, and that the remedy afforded by the charter was merely cumulative of the remedy afforded by a common-law action in damages; further holding that, since the remedies were cumulative, the injured employé had a right of election between the two, that, having elected to pursue the remedy of an action in damages, the city council had the right to settle and compromise their claims, and that the method pursued by that body was in substance and effect a settlement and compromise of such claims.
The section of the city charter is found in the article thereof relating to the civil service department, and reads as follows:
The Workmen's Compensation Act, Seattle charter, art. 16, § 32 (Rem. Code, § 6604-1), it will be remembered, by its first section declares that the common-law system governing the remedy of workmen against employers for injuries received in hazardous work is inconsistent with modern industrial conditions, is economically...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Pease
... ... received, was extrahazardous and within the terms and purview ... of the Industrial Insurance Act of the state of Washington ... 'III. That pursuant to the statutes of the state of ... Washington the city of Seattle maintains a firemen's ... In support ... of this contention appellants call our attention to the case ... of State ex rel. Fletcher v. Carroll, 94 Wash. 531, ... 162 P. 593, in which we said: ... 'Having in view the declarations concerning the purposes ... of the act and ... ...
-
Taylor v. City of Redmond, 44740
...since 1911, 1 as evidence that one in appellant's position is within the scope of that act. Respondents cite State ex rel. Fletcher v. Carroll, 94 Wash. 531, 162 P. 593 (1917), as authority for their position. In Fletcher, we held municipal employees, engaged in work that would have been cl......
-
Henry v. Navy Yard Route
... ... been more fully developed had the plaintiff been compelled to ... state the nature of her injuries with the fullness that the ... appellant desired. Since no prejudice resulted from the ... ruling of the ... ...