Skip to main content
· 4/25/1918

Bruenn v. North Yakima School District No. 7

Citations

  • 101 Wash. 374
  • 172 P. 569
  • 1918 Wash. LEXIS 858

Syllabus

<p>Trial—Instructions—Contributory Negligence—Pleading. Contributory negligence need not be submitted to the jury where it was not pleaded as a defense.</p> <p>Evidence—Conclusion of Witness. An offer to show by an experienced teacher that a teeter board was not in itself a dangerous instrumentality is properly excluded as a conclusion of the witness.</p> <p>Appeal-—Review — Harmless Error — Exclusion of Evidence. Error cannot be predicated upon excluding testimony tending to show that a teeter board was not in itself a dangerous instrumentality, where the court by its instructions eliminated that question and submitted the case only upon the question of failure or inadequacy of supervision.</p> <p>Schools and School Districts — Injury to Child on Play -Grounds—Negligence—Evidence—Sufficiency. Recovery against a school district for injuries to a child playing on a teeter board on the school grounds, on the ground of negligence in supervision, is sustained where there was evidence that the teeter board was removed from its original position and dangerously used in a swing, and that the teacher in supervision on the grounds either permitted such removal or failed to observe and prevent it.</p> <p>Statutes — Construction — Retroactive Effect. Laws 1917, p. 332, § 1, providing that no action shall be “brought or maintained” against a school district for non-contractual acts or omissions of officers or employees relating to play grounds owned or operated by the district does not apply to an action which had gone to judgment against the school district prior to the taking effect of the law in June, 1917, notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by the defendant at that time; since the prevailing party is not “maintaining” an action by appearing and resisting the appeal.</p> <p>Damages—Excessive Verdict. A verdict for $5,000 for personal injuries sustained by a boy seven or eight years of age, is not excessive where his ankle was injured, he suffered much pain and underwe

Judges: Main

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.