Negligence

Davison v.Snohomish County

Supreme Court of Washington,1928

149 Wash.109,270 P.422.

BEALS,J.Plaintiffs instituted this action against Snohomish county as defendant,seeking to recover damages alleged to have been suffered by them as the result of negligence of defendant in the construction and maintenance of the elevated approach to a bridge known as the bascule bridge across Ebey slough.In the southwesterly approach to this bridge there is a right angle turn towards the south just easterly of the slough,and at this point the causeway or approach to the bridge is at quite an elevation above the ground level.The bridge itself is approximately 18 feet wide;the approach leading to the bridge proper at the curve just to the east of the bridge increases in width to a maximum of 30.9 feet,narrowing again to 18 feet at the end of the turn.

At about 8 o’clock in the evening of November 11,1926,plaintiffs were driving their Ford automobile toward the city of Snohomish,and proceeded to cross the bridge from the west to east at a low rate of speed.Plaintiff Edwin F.Davison was driving,and,as the car rounded the curve to the east of the slough,he lost control,the car skidded,struck the railing on the east or outer edge of the approach just around the curve,broke through the railing,and,with plaintiffs,fell to the ground.Both plaintiffs suffered severe and painful injuries,and the automobile was wrecked;for all of which damage plaintiffs prayed for judgment in a large amount.

Defendant answered plaintiffs’ complaint,denying all the allegations of negligence on its part and affirmatively pleading contributory negligence on the part of plaintiffs.The action came on regularly for trial,and resulted in a verdict in plaintiffs’ favor in the sum of $2,500.Defendant seasonably moved for judgment in its favor notwithstanding the verdict,or,in the alternative,for a new trial.Both of these motions were denied by the trial court,which thereupon entered judgment upon the verdict,from which judgment defendant appeals….

[Respondents contended that the bridge was unsafe because of] the insufficiency of the railing or guard to prevent respondents’ automobile from skidding off the approach….

The use of the automobile as a means of transportation of passengers and freight has,during recent years,caused certain changes in the law governing the liability of municipalities in respect to the protection of their roads by railings or guards.A few years ago,when people traveled either on foot or by horse-drawn vehicles,a guardrail could to a considerable extent,actually prevent pedestrians or animals drawing vehicles from accidentally leaving the roadbed;but as a practical proposition,municipalities cannot be required to protect long stretches of roadway with railings or guards capable of preventing an automobile,moving at a rapid rate,from leaving the road if the car be in any way deflected from the roadway proper and propelled against the railing.As was said by this court in the case of Leber v.King County,69 Wash.134,124 P.397:

Roads must be built and traveled,and to hold that the public cannot open their highways until they are prepared to fence their roads with barriers strong enough to hold a team and wagon when coming in violent contact with them,the condition being the ordinary condition of the country,would be to put a burden upon the public that it could not bear.It would prohibit the building of new roads and tend to the financial ruin of the counties undertaking to maintain the old ones.

This principle applies with special force to elevated causeways constructed of wood,such as the approach from which respondents’ automobile fell,as upon such a structure the railing can be anchored or secured only to the deck of the causeway.Upon the ground,in situations of special danger,strength can be given to a guard or railing by driving posts into the earth,and a guard of any desired strength can be constructed in that manner.A concrete viaduct can be constructed with side walls of considerable resisting power;but the same degree of protection cannot be expected from a guard or railing along the side of an elevated frame causeway or viaduct.Respondents introduced some testimony to the effect that the posts which supported the railing were,to some extent,rotted.We have carefully considered this testimony,and,for the purposes of this opinion,assume that it was true;but we still do not think that it was sufficient to take the case to the jury upon the question of appellant’s negligence in connection with the condition of the railing at the time of the accident….

The judgment is reversed,with directions to dismiss the action.