Lawson v. City of Seattle

33 P. 347, 6 Wash. 184, 1893 Wash. LEXIS 258
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedApril 7, 1893
DocketNo. 873
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 33 P. 347 (Lawson v. City of Seattle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lawson v. City of Seattle, 33 P. 347, 6 Wash. 184, 1893 Wash. LEXIS 258 (Wash. 1893).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dunbar, C. J.

We believe there ai’e no authorities which support appellant’s contention that a municipal corporation is liable for the negligence of firemen engaged in the line of their duty. The authorities cited by appellant certainly do not maintain this proposition, but on the contrary most of them assert exactly the opposite proposition, viz., the rule that a municipal corporation is not liable for the negligence of firemen engaged in the line of their duty. This is so plainly the well established rule that it is scarcely necessary to discuss it. See Dillon on Municipal Corp. (4th ed.), § 976, and cases cited.

This is all the proposition that is discussed by the appellant, and is probably all the point that could be raised under the pleadings; for while the complaint alleges that the city furnished an unsuitable and .defective frame or brace, known as a “deadman, ” for use in the work in which Lawson was engaged, yet it does not appear very clearly, if at all, that the defective “deadman” was the cause of the accident. But, conceding that it was so stated in the complaint, it is a well known fact that the apparatus used by a fire company is not under'the control of the city, but is under the special control and inspection of the fire company, and such city can, therefore, no more be held for the defective condition of the apparatus than it can for its negligent operation by the company.

We think the demurrer to the complaint was properly sustained and the judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

Stiles, Hoyt and Anders, JJ., concur.

Scott, J., concurs in the result.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jackson v. City of Kansas City
680 P.2d 877 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1984)
Thompson v. City of Albion
212 N.W. 37 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1927)
Hotel Cecil Co. v. City of Seattle
177 P. 347 (Washington Supreme Court, 1918)
Nelson v. City of Spokane
176 P. 149 (Washington Supreme Court, 1918)
City of Seattle v. Puget Sound Traction, Light & Power Co.
174 P. 464 (Washington Supreme Court, 1918)
Howard v. Tacoma School District No. 10
152 P. 1004 (Washington Supreme Court, 1915)
Seattle Electric Co. v. City of Seattle
206 F. 955 (W.D. Washington, 1913)
Island Transp. Co. v. City of Seattle
205 F. 993 (W.D. Washington, 1913)
Hoek v. Township of Allendale
126 N.W. 987 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1910)
Cunningham v. City of Seattle
82 P. 143 (Washington Supreme Court, 1905)
Lynch v. City of North Yakima
80 P. 79 (Washington Supreme Court, 1905)
Simpson v. City of Whatcom
63 L.R.A. 815 (Washington Supreme Court, 1903)
City of Kansas v. McDonald
45 L.R.A. 429 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 P. 347, 6 Wash. 184, 1893 Wash. LEXIS 258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawson-v-city-of-seattle-wash-1893.