Perry v. City of Centralia

Citations

• 50 Wash. 670
• 97 P. 802
• 1908 Wash. LEXIS 803

Syllabus

<p>Municipal Corporations — Streets—Unguarded Manhole — Negligence — Contributory Negligence- — Questions for Jury. The questions of the negligence of a city in guarding a manhole in a sewer in course of construction, and of the contributory negligence of the plaintiff in falling into the same, are for the jury, where it appears that the testimony conflicts as to the barriers on one side of the hole, there being testimony to the effect that sections of sewer pipe placed as barriers stood so far apart and far bach that one could easily pass between them without knowing thereof, that a red signal light was fifteen feet distant from that edge of the hole, and where it appears that the plaintiff, on a very dark night, in an endeavor to avoid a muddy crossing caused by the construction work, of which she had general notice, walked into the hole, being misled by the signal light, which she supposed marked the location of the hole.</p> <p>Same — Evidence—Showing Ultimate Liability of Contractor-Trial — Witnesses—Cross-Examination. In an action against a city for personal injuries sustained by reason of street work carried on by a contractor, it is not error, on cross-examination of a son of the contractor for the purpose of showing his interest and discrediting his testimony, to show the fact that the contractor might be ultimately liable to the city for the amount of any recovery against the ■city.</p> <p>Trial — Verdict—Special Verdict. An answer to a special interrogatory, to tbe effect that plaintiff bad not “walked around” a manhole three or four times and did not know of its location, is proper where it simply appeared that she had passed by and knew of its general location, and the same is not inconsistent with a general verdict for plaintiff.</p>