Stuart v. East Valley Consol. School Dist. No. 361, 36369
| Citation | 61 Wn.2d 571,379 P.2d 369 |
| Decision Date | 07 March 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 36369,36369 |
| Parties | W. R. STUART, as Guardian Ad Litem of W. R. Stuart, Jr., a minor, Appellant, v. EAST VALLEY CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 361, Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
Jack Dibble and Norman S. Johnson, Spokane, for appellant.
John D. MacGillivray, Harvey W. Clarke, Spokane, for respondent.
The plaintiff, as guardian ad litem for his minor son, brought this action to recover damages for injuries which the boy sustained when he thrust his hand and arm through a glass pane in a door of a school building operated and maintained by the defendant.
A motion for summary judgment, served and filed by the defendant, was heard on affidavits of the superintendent and the clerk of the school district ( that no claim had been filed with the governing body of the school district, as required by RCW 53.52.010-020), on the affidavit of an attorney for the plaintiff ( that he had presented such a claim), and on the deposition of the attorney.
The deposition revealed that the attorney had spoken with the principal of the school and the superintendent of the district at one time, when he went to the school with the plaintiff and his son to examine the scene of the accident, and had told them that he felt there was negligence on the part of the school district. He asked whether there was insurance, and the principal or his secretary made notes of certain information concerning the accident, which the principal indicated he needed to make a report. He did not state to whom the report was to be made, and there was no evidence that one was ever made to the governing body of the school district. The attorney did not request that the principal file a claim on behalf of the plaintiff. He did state that a claim would be presented, but no written claim was ever presented or filed.
The trial court dismissed the action, finding that the requirement of the statute had not been complied with an overruling the contention of the plaintiff that Laws of 1957, chapter 224, §§ 10 and 11 (RCW 53.52.010-020) contravene the provisions of Art. 2, § 19, of the state constitution.
Error is assigned to these rulings of the trial court.
It is the first contention of the plaintiff that a claim was filed. Section 10 of the act provides:
'As used in section 11 the term 'district' includes all municipal corporations having a governing body, such as port, school, independent highway, water, fire protection, sewer, public utility, and all other districts of similar organization but does not include any city, town, county, or township.'
Section 11 provides:
'All claims for damages against any district as defined in section 10 must be presented to the governing body of such district and filed with the clerk or proper officer thereof within one year from the date the damage occurred or the injury was sustained or such claim shall be disallowed.'
Compliance with these provisions is mandatory and constitutes a condition precedent to maintaining an action, by or on behalf of a minor, for damages for injuries sustained as a result of the negligence of the school district. Kelleher v. Ephrata School Dist. No. 165, 56 Wash.2d 866, 355 P.2d 989. As we remarked in that case, the reason why this is so is that the functions of a school district are mainly governmental, and it would not be liable at common law for injuries resulting from negligence in the operation of its schools. An injured party's action is dependent upon statutory enactments, and where a right exists only by virtue of a statute, the right is subject to such conditions as the legislature may impose.
Under the appropriate definition of the verb 'file,' in Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, 1960 ed., we find the following:
'1. To arrange, as papers, documents, manuscripts, etc., in order for reference and for preservation.
'2. to put (a paper, etc.) in its proper place or order.
'3. in law, to place (a legal document) on public record, or among the records of a court.'
There is no definition which would permit a conclusion that an oral notice can be filed. The requirement that a claim must be filed necessarily involves a requirement that it be put in writing. Had the statute merely required that notice be given, it could perhaps be successfully argued that the discussion among the plaintiff, his attorney, the principal, and the superintendent was sufficient to satisfy its requirement. But the statute clearly requires the formality of a written claim. Consequently, the trial court did not err in holding that no claim was filed by the plaintiff. Having determined that a writing is necessary, we need not consider whether the notice given by the plaintiff, had it been in writing, would have been sufficient.
There remains the question of the constitutionality of the act.
Article 2, § 19, of the state constitution provides:
'No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.'
The title of Laws of 1957,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Besette v. Enderlin School Dist. No. 22
...Ga.App. 301, 170 S.E.2d 339 (1969); Cochran v. City of Sumter, 242 S.C. 382, 131 S.E.2d 153 (1963); Stuart v. East Valley Consolidated Sch. Dist. No. 361, 61 Wash.2d 571, 379 P.2d 369 (1963); Allen v. Los Angeles City Board of Education, 173 Cal.App.2d 126, 343 P.2d 170 (Ct.App.1959); See A......
-
State v. Slaugh
...the previous words in the sentence have prepared the reader.” Hutchinson,supra, at 241. In Stuart v. East Valley Consolidated School District No. 361, 61 Wash.2d 571, 575, 379 P.2d 369 (1963), the court differentiated the use of a colon, which one could contend introduced matter that was ex......
-
State v. Slaugh
...the previous words in the sentence have prepared the reader." hutchinson, supra, at 241. In Stuart v. East Valley Consolidated School District No. 361, 61 Wn.2d 571, 575, 379 P.2d 369 (1963), the court differentiated the use of a colon, which one could contend introduced matter that was exp......
-
El Coba Co. Dormitories, Inc. v. Franklin County Public Utility Dist.
...JJ., concur. 1 In Bartelson v. Puyallup School Dist., 77 Wash.2d 412, 462 P.2d 912 (1969) and Stuart v. East Valley Consol. School Dist. 361, 61 Wash.2d 571, 379 P.2d 369 (1963), the provisions of RCW 53.52 were held to be mandatory and required a claim be filed with the 'district' as there......