Harris v. City of Bremerton

Citations

• 85 Wash. 64
• 147 P. 638
• 1915 Wash. LEXIS 1255

Syllabus

<p>Municipal Corporations — City Wharf — Personal Injury — Question for Jury — Negligence. Whether a city was negligent in maintaining a wharf made up of two floats placed end to end, about one and one-half feet apart, with an apron or platform connecting the two floats, leaving an open space, which in the nighttime was not readily observable by reason of the shadow of a pile thrown upon it, presents a question for the jury, where a ferryman, who had never before been upon the wharf, but knew the general manner of its construction, fell into the open space thus cast in shadow.</p> <p>Same —■ Contributory Negligence • — • Forgetfulness of Hidden Danger. The fact that the person injured had knowledge of the manner of construction of the wharf would not as a matter of law constitute contributory negligence, when the danger was so hidden as not of itself to be a reminder of its existence to one coming within its presence.</p> <p>Same — Who are Trespassers. The fact that a ferryman operating a launch for hire had not paid the wharfage license required by the city would not render him a trespasser in the use of a wharf at which he landed, to the extent of depriving him of the right of protection against personal injuries received through the city’s negligence in maintaining the wharf in a dangerous condition.</p> <p>Appeal and Error — Preservation of Grounds — Necessity of Exceptions. Alleged error in the giving of instructions will not be reviewed on appeal where exceptions to such instructions are not presented by the statement of facts or bill of exceptions.</p> <p>Same — Preservation of Grounds :— Exceptions — Instructions. Errors assigned in the giving of instructions will not be considered on appeal where the purported exceptions refer to instructions by number only, and there are no numbered instructions in the record.</p> <p>Appeal — Harmless Error — Requested Instructions. Refusal to give requested instructions is not prejudicial error when they were given in sub