Noll v. City of Seattle

Washington Supreme Court

Noll v. City of Seattle

69 P. 382, 29 Wash. 28, 1902 Wash. LEXIS 549

CourtWashington Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 5, 1902

DocketNo. 4104

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 69 P. 382 (Noll 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

Noll v. City of Seattle, 69 P. 382, 29 Wash. 28, 1902 Wash. LEXIS 549 (Wash. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Reavis, C. J.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries. It appears that defendant bad given permission to a property owner who was operating a laundry to uncover or malee an excavation in Main street. Such excavation was made, and, while without barriers or cover around it, the plaintiff fell into' it, and sustained the injuries complained of. When the plaintiff’s testimony was concluded, a motion for non-suit was made by defendant. Two- grounds for non-suit, were urged: (-1) That the city bad no> notice of the unguarded condition of the excavation at the time the accident occurred; and (2) that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.

Relative to the first ground it may be said the evidence on the part of plaintiff tended to show that the excavation had been uncovered for several days; and was at times unguarded; that there was no sufficient light to show the excavation; and that when plaintiff was injured there were no barriers for protection of any sort around the exea[30]*30vation. It will also be noted that thei city had given permission for the street to he uncovered and the excavation to¡ he made. This permission, taken in connection with the other evidence that the excavation, was in a public and much-traveled street, was sufficient for thei jury to infer knowledge on the part of the city of the negligent condition in which the excavation was left. For a pertinent discussion of the knowledge imputed to defendant, see Beall v. Seattle, 28 Wash. 593 (69 Pac. 12).

Relative to contributory negligence, the evidence showed that plaintiff had engaged in a brawl soma two blocks from the place of the accident, and ran away rapidly from the persons with whom thei difficulty occurred, and in his course ran into the front and out of the rear door of a saloon, and through an alley onto the Main street, and into the excavation. The manner in which he got onto the street, and the rate of speed at which he was going, were facts to1 he submitted to the jury.

Ro error of law appearing on the record, the judgment is affirmed.

Anders, Hadley, Fullerton, Mount, Dunbar and White, JL, concur.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Reavis, C. J.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries. It appears that defendant bad given permission to a property owner who was operating a laundry to uncover or malee an excavation in Main street. Such excavation was made, and, while without barriers or cover around it, the plaintiff fell into' it, and sustained the injuries complained of. When the plaintiff’s testimony was concluded, a motion for non-suit was made by defendant. Two- grounds for non-suit, were urged: (-1) That the city bad no> notice of the unguarded condition of the excavation at the time the accident occurred; and (2) that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.

Relative to the first ground it may be said the evidence on the part of plaintiff tended to show that the excavation had been uncovered for several days; and was at times unguarded; that there was no sufficient light to show the excavation; and that when plaintiff was injured there were no barriers for protection of any sort around the exea[30]*30vation. It will also be noted that thei city had given permission for the street to he uncovered and the excavation to¡ he made. This permission, taken in connection with the other evidence that the excavation, was in a public and much-traveled street, was sufficient for thei jury to infer knowledge on the part of the city of the negligent condition in which the excavation was left. For a pertinent discussion of the knowledge imputed to defendant, see Beall v. Seattle, 28 Wash. 593 (69 Pac. 12).

Relative to contributory negligence, the evidence showed that plaintiff had engaged in a brawl soma two blocks from the place of the accident, and ran away rapidly from the persons with whom thei difficulty occurred, and in his course ran into the front and out of the rear door of a saloon, and through an alley onto the Main street, and into the excavation. The manner in which he got onto the street, and the rate of speed at which he was going, were facts to1 he submitted to the jury.

Ro error of law appearing on the record, the judgment is affirmed.

Anders, Hadley, Fullerton, Mount, Dunbar and White, JL, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 P. 382, 29 Wash. 28, 1902 Wash. LEXIS 549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/noll-v-city-of-seattle-wash-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack