Smith v. City of Spokane

Citations

• 16 Wash. 403
• 47 P. 888
• 1897 Wash. LEXIS 333

Syllabus

<p>ICY SIDEWALKS—NEGLIGENCE OF CITY—LIABILITY FOB INJURIES — CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE —PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OF FEMALE PLAINTIFF— EXCESSIVE DAMAGES.</p> <p>Where an accumulation of snow and ice upon a sidewalk becomes rough, uneven and rounded up to such an extent that it is dangerous for persons passing over it, it constitutes an obstruction to travel which it is the duty of the city to remove, and anyone injured thereby, while in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence, is entitled to recover damages from the city.</p> <p>The question of the contributory negligence of plaintiff, in an action for damages received through the negligence of a city in allowing an accumulation of ice and snow to remain heaped up in a dangerous condition on one of its sidewalks, is for the jury, when it appears that plaintiff was proceeding along the walk in the evening, not very rapidly, and as carefully as persons ordinarily walk along the street; that she slipped and fell on this accumulation of ice, receiving painful injuries; that the place was lighted by an electric light and she noticed its condition after she fell, but it does not clearly appear that she noticed its condition before stepping upon it ; that during the preceding three weeks she had safely passed over the walk in the day time five or six times, the last time about a week before the accident; and that the ice and snow at the place of the accident appeared to be in about the same condition as it was the last time she passed over it, about a week before.</p> <p>The fact that the plaintiff may have had prior knowledge of the dangerous condition of a sidewalk is not itself conclusive proof of contributory negligence on her part in subsequently walking thereon.</p> <p>The refusal of the court to grant a request for the physical examination of a female plaintiff by doctors named by the defendant, in an action for damages for personal injuries, is not error, when there is no showing of an abuse of the discretion vested in