Wagner v. City of Seattle

• Decision Date: 05 March 1915
• Docket Number: 12428.
• Citation: 146 P. 621,84 Wash. 275
• Parties: WAGNER et al. v. CITY OF SEATTLE.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

146 P. 621

84 Wash. 275

WAGNER et al. v. CITY OF SEATTLE.

No. 12428.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 5, 1915

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Boyd J. Tallman Judge.

Action by Esther Wagner and husband against the City of Seattle. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed on condition that plaintiff files remittitur.

Jas. E Bradford and Melvin S. Good, both of Seattle, for appellant.

Rosenthal & Aaron and Philip Tworoger, all of Seattle, for respondents.

MORRIS C.J.

Action for personal injuries claimed to have been sustained from a fall upon a defective sidewalk. Verdict and judgment for $325 in plaintiffs' favor, the injuries being slight, from which the city appeals.

The error urged against the judgment is that the trial court permitted respondents to amend the claim filed with the city so as to embrace items of damage known to respondents at the time the claim was filed, but not included therein. The injury occurred on November 19, 1911. The claim was filed December 16, 1911. It sets forth the particulars as to the place and character of the injury and the damage sustained but makes no reference to the employment of nurses, nor any claim of damages caused by such employment. On the trial respondents offered testimony to the effect that they had expended $65 in the employment of a nurse. The city objected as not being within the claim filed. The lower court overruled the objection, and permitted respondents to amend the claim so as to include this item. The amendment also included a change in respondents' address from 218 Twenty-First avenue, as given in the claim filed, to 208 Twenty-First avenue.

The charter of the city of Seattle provides that all claims for damages shall 'contain all items of damage claimed.' Section 7995, Rem. & Bal. Code provides that such claims shall state the residence of the claimant at the date of the filing and for six months immediately prior thereto. Provisions of this character have uniformly been sustained, and must be complied with when, as here, the items are known at the time of the filing of the claim. Horton v. Seattle, 53 Wash. 316, 101 P. 1091; Casassa v. Seattle, 75 Wash. 367, 134 P. 1080; Collins v. Spokane, 64 Wash. 153, 116 P. 663, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 840. The provision requiring the filing of a claim, being statutory in its nature, there can be no amendment without statutory authority. There is no such authority in this state, and we must hold that such claims cannot be amended at the trial so as to include items of damage known at the time of the filing of the claim, but not included therein. It was therefore error for the lower court to permit the amendment, but it does not follow that the judgment must be reversed, since the error can be remedied by deducting from the judgment the sum of $65, the amount paid for nursing. We do not mean to be understood in so holding that claims of this character must be construed with such exactness as to preclude evidence of those injuries not specifically mentioned in the claim, but which naturally and proximately flow from the injuries described in the claim. Evidence of such proximate results is admissible without reference to the claim. Durham v. Spokane, 27 Wash. 615, 68 P. 383.

While the lower court was not justified in allowing the amendment of the claim as to respondents' street address, it does not follow that this was error so prejudicial as to call for a reversal, since the evidence of the correct address was admissible without the amendment. The obvious purpose of these charter and statutory provisions is to insure such notice to the city as to enable it to investigate the cause and character of the injury; and, where there is a...