Willett v. City of Seattle

Citations

• 96 Wash. 632
• 165 P. 876

Syllabus

<p>Municipal Cobpobations — Claims—Necessity—Damages. Where lots were flooded in consequence of the city’s failure to provide an adequate culvert through which a stream could pass under a street fill, and the damages were neither contemplated by the plan of the work nor a necessary incident in making the improvement, the damages were consequential and sound in tort, and a claim therefor is a condition precedent to action, under Seattle charter, art. 4, § 29, requiring claims for damages, “which must accurately locate and describe the defect that caused the injury.”</p> <p>Same — Claims—Sufficiency. Under Seattle charter, art. 4, § 29, requiring claims to contain the items of damages, evidence of consequential damages sounding in tort from the flooding of lots in making a street fill and cut is not admissible under claims for damages for cutting off access to property or digging into lots with a steam shovel and which made no mention of flooding or inadequate drains.</p> <p>Appeal — Review—-Veedict. A verdict sustained by conflicting evidence submitted by proper instructions is conclusive.</p>