Scherrer v. City of Seattle

Citations

• 52 Wash. 4
• 100 P. 144
• 1909 Wash. LEXIS 1065

Syllabus

<p>Municipal Corporations — Actions—Claims—As Condition Precedent — -Reasonableness of Requirements — Statement of Claimant’s Residence. It is an unreasonable requirement that a claimant for damages against a city shall state his residence for one year last past, in a claim to be filed with the city, as a condition precedent to action against the city, and hence one that the city has no power to enforce by ordinance (Chadwick and Fullerton, JJ., dissenting).</p> <p>Appeal — Review—Harmless Error — Instructions. It is harmless error to instruct upon a question not involved in the case, where it was merely casual and leading up to the other instructions, and it plainly appears to have been without prejudice.</p> <p>Same. Failure to limit the amount of recovery to the amount claimed is harmless where it appears from the instruction as a whole that the jury could not -have been misled, and the verdict was less than the amount claimed.</p> <p>Trial — Instructions—Testimony and Evidence. It is not a valid objection to instructions that the word “testimony” was used in place of the word “evidence.”</p> <p>Appeal — Review—Exceptions to Instructions. Error cannot be predicated on the refusal to give instructions, request for which was laid on the judge’s table and not called to his attention until the jury retired, when the court offered to recall the jury to give the instructions, and counsel did not avail himself of the offer, merely contenting himself with stating an exception.</p> <p>Damages — Personal Injuries — Excessive Verdict. A verdict will not be set aside as excessive when, if excessive at all, it was not so excessive as to be the result of passion or prejudice.</p>