Howard v. Snohomish County

Citations

• 38 Wash. 149
• 80 P. 293
• 1905 Wash. LEXIS 1136

Syllabus

<p>Bridges—Negligence—Damages—Action Against County— Notice oe Defect—Harmless Error in Excluding Evidence. In an action against a county for personal injuries sustained through the collapse of a bridge, it is not reversible error that evidence of a witness was excluded tending to show actual notice to the county of the defective condition of the bridge, where it was shown by other evidence that the defective stringers were placed in the bridge by the road supervisor, that being actual notice to the county of the defect.</p> <p>Same—Defense of Assumption of Risks—Pleading—Contributory Negligence in Crossing Bridge With Traction Engine. In an action against a county for personal injuries sustained through the collapse of a bridge, it is not reversible error to refuse to strike out a defense that the plaintiff assumed the risk in attempting to cross the bridge with a traction engine, where the pleading amounted to a statement of facts showing contributory negligence in plaintiffs manner of so doing; although it contained the words “assumed all risks,” and technically assumption of risks is not an issue in such a case*.</p>