Bartlett v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
74 Wash. 2d 881, 1968 Wash. LEXIS 838, 447 P.2d 735 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipality may be liable for negligence if it fails to maintain adequate warning signs or barriers where a roadway situation is inherently dangerous or of such a character as to mislead a traveler exercising reasonable care.
Facts:
- The plaintiff drove his automobile up an inclined roadway leading to a bridge over the Northern Pacific Railway tracks.
- The roadway required a 90-degree left turn to get onto the bridge, which was approximately 35 feet above the ground.
- Unknown to the plaintiff, the surface of the roadway at the turn was slippery or icy.
- When attempting the turn, the plaintiff's car failed to turn and instead continued straight ahead.
- The car went over a wooden curb, which was allegedly worn down, crossed a 6-foot sidewalk, and broke through a guardrail.
- The plaintiff's vehicle plunged to the ground below.
- There was a history of similar accidents at this specific location.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the city of Tacoma and the Northern Pacific Railway Company in the trial court.
- The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
- The plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Supreme Court of Washington.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the question of whether a municipality was negligent for failing to provide adequate warnings or barriers at an allegedly inherently dangerous roadway present a triable issue of fact for a jury, precluding summary judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Hill, J.
Yes. Whether a municipality was negligent for failing to provide adequate warnings or barriers at an allegedly inherently dangerous roadway presents a triable issue of fact for a jury. A jury could reasonably find that the situation—a sharp, slippery turn on an overpass 35 feet above the ground—was inherently dangerous or capable of misleading a driver exercising reasonable care. If a jury makes such a finding, the adequacy of the existing warnings (a 10 mph speed sign) and barriers (a worn-down curb and guardrail) also becomes a question of fact for the jury to decide. The court distinguished the precedent in Davison v. Snohomish Cy., which held there is no duty to erect barriers sufficient to stop high-speed vehicles, by reasoning that the duty may be different for stopping slow-moving vehicles from falling off a high bridge. The court also noted that precedents from 40 years ago regarding the engineering and financial practicality of stronger barriers are not necessarily authoritative today.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms that questions of negligence, inherent danger, and the reasonableness of safety measures are typically factual inquiries reserved for the jury, not questions of law to be decided by a judge on summary judgment. It limits the ability of defendants, particularly municipalities, to have negligence cases dismissed before trial when there is a genuine dispute over the dangerousness of a condition. Furthermore, the opinion signals a willingness to re-evaluate older precedents concerning engineering feasibility and cost, suggesting that courts may hold government entities to a higher standard of care as technology and safety standards evolve.
Unlock the full brief for Bartlett v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.