Davison v. Snohomish County

Supreme Court of Washington · Torts

Tortsmunicipal negligencebridge and roadway safetymunicipal liabilitybridge approachguard railreasonably safe conditionsubstantial evidence

Facts

Plaintiffs were driving east across the Bascule Bridge and, while rounding a right-angle curve on the elevated approach, their car skidded, broke through the outer railing, and fell to the ground. They claimed the county was negligent because the railing was insufficient and supported by decayed posts, the deck at the curve sloped slightly toward the outer edge, and wet dirt had been scattered on the deck from county hauling operations, making it slippery. Plaintiffs were thoroughly familiar with the bridge and its approaches, having driven over them many times before. The only issue on appeal was whether the county was liable at all, not the amount of damages.

Issue

Was there substantial evidence that Snohomish County negligently constructed or maintained the bridge approach so that it was not reasonably safe for travel, based on the railing condition, the slight outward slope of the deck, and the presence of wet dirt on the surface? If not, should judgment notwithstanding the verdict have been granted for the county?

Rule

A municipality has a duty to keep its bridges and approaches in a reasonably safe condition for travel by those using them with ordinary care, but it is not an insurer against all accidents. It need not provide barriers capable of stopping automobiles in violent contact, especially on elevated wooden causeways, and ordinary accumulations of dirt or similar matter do not create liability absent a dangerous condition existing long enough to imply notice and negligent failure to remedy it. A verdict must rest on substantial evidence, not a mere scintilla.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Tacoma, Owen Mercer drove slowly across a city-maintained elevated timber roadway during a light drizzle. His car unexpectedly fishtailed, brushed a side barrier, and dropped off the edge after the barrier gave way; he sues the city relying mainly on the fact that the accident occurred on a municipal approach open to traffic.

What is the strongest argument for the city under the governing rule?

Explanation. A municipality must keep bridges and approaches reasonably safe for travel by persons using ordinary care, but it is not an insurer against every accident. The mere occurrence of a crash and barrier failure does not itself establish negligence; there must be substantial evidence of an unreasonably unsafe condition attributable to the municipality.