White v. King County
| Decision Date | 07 August 1918 |
| Docket Number | 14032. |
| Citation | 174 P. 3,103 Wash. 327 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | WHITE v. KING COUNTY. |
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Everett Smith Judge.
Action by Emma F. White, individually and as executrix of the will of William H. White, deceased, against King County. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
L. R Kerley, of Seattle, for appellant.
Alfred H. Lundin and S. M. Brackett, both of Seattle, for respondent.
The appellant, individually and as executrix of the estate of her deceased husband, began this action on March 16, 1915, to recover consequential damages caused to certain lands as the result of increased seepage and drainage thereon by reason of raising the grade of an established county road.
The complaint alleges that the appellant and her husband in the year 1901 donated a 60-foot right of way to the county for road purposes, and that the initial improvement of the road was made during the same year, by grading a roadway in the center thereof 16 feet in width and surfacing the same with gravel; that at a point where the crest of the roadway, as thus improved, was about 1 foot above the natural surface of the ground, the appellant and her husband and theretofore improved their property prior to the year 1901 by the erection of a hotel building, and had later made improvements in and about the hotel with reference to such established grade; that during the year 1912 the county altered the road in the construction of a paved highway under the permanent highway system of the state, by widening the roadway from 16 to 25 feet, and by negligently raising its grade 2 feet 2 inches above the former level that the change of grade and surfacing were completed and accepted by the board of county commissioners on December 2 1912; that the change of grade was without the consent of the appellant and her husband; that the road was left in a condition sloping towards their hotel property in such a manner that during the rainy season the water and slush from the road would constantly run into the hotel property rendering it almost untenantable, and making it less attractive to patrons, thereby reducing its trade and custom that no provision was made for drains through the embankment caused by the elevation of the road, and that by reason thereof water from above the road and water draining off the road is thrown and held in the narrow area between the highway and the building, and can only be dissipated by seepage or evaporation, none of which conditions existed under the old established road grade; that by reason of the increased height of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wallace v. Lewis County
...¶ 28 An action for negligent injury to real property is subject to a two-year statute of limitations. RCW 4.16.130; White v. King County, 103 Wash. 327, 329, 174 P. 3 (1918); Mayer v. City of Seattle, 102 Wash.App. 66, 75, 10 P.3d 408 (2000), review denied, 142 Wash.2d 1029, 21 P.3d 1150 (2......
-
City of Moses Lake v. U.S.
...of action. RCW 4.16.130; Bradley v. American Smelting and Refining Co., 104 Wash.2d 677, 684, 709 P.2d 782 (1985); White v. King County, 103 Wash. 327, 329, 174 P. 3 (1918). Moses Lake does not dispute that if these statutes of limitation apply to permanent tort claims against Boeing and Lo......
-
Will v. Frontier Contractors, Inc.
...75, 10 P.3d 408 (2000) (applying the two year statute of limitations for negligent injury to real property) (citing White v. King County, 103 Wash. 327, 329, 174 P. 3 (1918)). A negligence claim accrues when the plaintiff suffers an injury unless, under the specific facts, the discovery rul......
-
Mayer v. City of Seattle
...780 F.Supp. 1551, 1574 (E.D.Wash.1991) (Washington's two-year limitations period governs nuisance claims); White v. King County, 103 Wash. 327, 329, 174 P. 3 (1918) (two-year limitation applies to negligent injury to real property). Mayer argues for the first time in his reply brief that hi......