City of Seattle v. Saulez

Citations

• 47 Wash. 365
• 92 P. 140
• 1907 Wash. LEXIS 767

Syllabus

<p>Indemnity—Judgment—Conclusiveness—Notice to Depend. A judgment against a city for damages from the negligence of a contractor, who had agreed to save the city harmless therefrom, is conclusive against the contractor where he had notice to defend, as to the amount of damages, the existence of the defect, and want of negligence on the part of plaintiff in the former case.</p> <p>Same—Defenses to Action—Barriers Required by Contract— Waiver by City Inspector. Where a contractor has agreed with a city to erect harriers over street excavations and save the city harmless from accidents resulting therefrom, he cannot excuse the failure to erect harriers by the fact that a city street inspector was present and gave no directions as to the erection of barriers.</p> <p>Same — Judgment — Admissibility as Evidence — Persons Not Notified. In an action by a city against an indemnity company to recover over the amount paid on a judgment for personal injuries, the judgment is admissible in evidence for the purpose of showing that it had been recovered against the city for damages for failure to keep the streets in repair, although the surety company was not notified to appear and defend the action.</p>