Wilton v. City of Spokane
Citations
- 73 Wash. 619
- 132 P. 404
- 1913 Wash. LEXIS 1648
Syllabus
<p>Municipal Corporations — Defects in Streets — Negligence of Independent Contractor — Liability of City. A city is not liable for tbe negligence of an independent contractor in leaving an unexploded blast of dynamite in tbe rock below tbe surface of a street, on tbe theory that public policy prevents the letting of blasting work in streets to independent contractors, since it was negligence of the contractor wholly collateral to the contract work, of which the city had no knowledge.</p> <p>Master and Servant — Relation—Liability of City — Defects in Streets. The relation of master and servant does not exist between a city and the employee of a power company which is merely licensed to dig holes and put up poles in a street; and the city owes him no duty to furnish him a safe place to work.</p> <p>Municipal Corporations — Defects in Streets — Liability. A city is not a guarantor of the condition of its streets for all purposes, but only for defects of which it had knowledge or could by reasonable diligence have obtained knowledge. •</p> <p>Negligence — Leaving Unexploded Blast Beneath Street — Liability of Contractor — Defenses—Acceptance of Work. An .independent contractor on street work is liable for injuries sustained through the negligent leaving of an unexploded charge of dynamite •in rock beneath, the surface of the street, although his work has been accepted as a complete performance of his contract; since it was a wrongful act of negligence wholly collateral to the work.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concerning the sufficiency of a petition to recall School Board members who voted for a controversial multi-racial middle school and mandatory busing program
- concerning the sufficiency of a petition to recall School Board members who voted for a controversial multi-racial middle school and mandatory busing program
- finding the difference between de facto and de jure discrimination constitutionally insignificant
- finding the difference between de facto and de jure discrimination constitutionally insignificant
- finding the difference between de facto and de jure discrimination constitutionally insignificant
- “employing officials known to be incompetent”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Fullerton
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.