Willett v. City of Seattle

• Decision Date: 15 June 1917
• Docket Number: 13408.
• Citation: 165 P. 876,96 Wash. 632
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: WILLETT et ux. v. CITY OF SEATTLE.

165 P. 876

96 Wash. 632

WILLETT et ux. v. CITY OF SEATTLE.

No. 13408.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 15, 1917

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; R. B. Albertson Judge.

Action by O. L. Willett and wife against the City of Seattle. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Edward Judd, of Seattle, for appellants.

Hugh M Caldwell and Robert H. Evans, both of Seattle, for respondent.

MAIN J.

The purpose of this action was to recover damage to property by reason of the improvement of a city street. The cause was tried to the court and a jury, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendant, the plaintiffs appeal.

The facts are these: On the 19th day of June, 1908, and for some time prior thereto, the appellants were the owners of a tract of land, consisting of approximately 15 acres which had been platted into blocks and lots, and was known as O. L. Willett's addition to the city of Seattle. Extending along the south side of this addition was Graham street, with which the streets appearing upon the plat of Willett's addition intersected. On the date mentioned the respondent city contracted for the improvement of Graham street. This improvement, in front of a portion of Willett's addition, involved a deep cut; in front of another portion, a fill of considerable height. Across Willett's addition was a small perennial stream, flowing to the south, and across Graham street. In making the fill, the city failed to provide an adequate drain or culvert under the fill, through which the water of the stream could pass, and, as a consequence, a portion of Willett's addition was flooded and damaged. During the time the work was being performed, some of the lots of the addition, abutting upon the cut, were dug into by the steam shovels. The action, as first brought, sought an injunction restraining the improvement, because of its interference with the access to Willett's addition. After this action was brought, a stipulation was entered into by which the work was permitted to continue. Prior to the institution of the action, and on April 19, 1909, the appellants filed a claim for damages with the city council, 'by reason of the grading of Graham street,' and 'entirely cutting off access to Graham street from Thirty-Fifth Avenue South, one of the streets decidated in the plat of said addition (Willett's addition); and that the said grading is being so conducted that a heavy cut is being made along and on Graham street in front of the center and west side of said addition, so as to cut off access to Graham street from Thirty-Third Avenue South, one of the streets dedicated in the plat of said addition.' In this claim for damages, no mention is made of the flooding of a portion of Willett's addition by reason of inadequate drainage. Another claim for damages was filed on May 31, 1913, and in this no item of damages for flooding is mentioned. On September 15, 1914, an amended complaint was filed, upon which issue was joined by answer, and the cause, in due time, proceeded to trial.

Upon the trial, the appellants offered evidence as to damages sustained by reason of the flooding, to which objection was made by the city, and sustained by the trial court. The reason for this ruling was that the flooding was not claimed as an item of damages in either of the claims filed.

Upon this appeal, the first question is whether the filing of a claim with the city is a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action for damages caused by the flooding. Section 29 of article 4 of the charter of the city of Seattle requires, among other things, that claims for damages 'must accurately locate and describe the defect that caused the injury, accurately describe the injury, * * * contain the items of damages claimed, and be sworn to by the claimant.' Under this charter provision, claims for damages, whether sounding in tort or contract, must be presented within the time and in the manner therein provided. International Contract Co. v. Seattle, 69 Wash. 391 125 P. 152; ...