Davison v. Snohomish County
270 P. 422 (1928)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipality has a duty to keep its thoroughfares in a reasonably safe condition for ordinary travel, but it is not an insurer of safety and is not required to construct guardrails strong enough to prevent a fast-moving or out-of-control automobile from leaving the roadway.
Facts:
- Edwin F. Davison and his wife were driving their Ford automobile across the Bascule Bridge in Snohomish County on a rainy evening.
- The approach to the bridge featured an elevated, sharp right-angle turn.
- Snohomish County had been hauling dirt for a nearby road repair, and some of this dirt was scattered over the bridge approach.
- The rain had mixed with the dirt, making the surface of the bridge approach deck very slippery.
- As Mr. Davison navigated the turn, the car skidded, and he lost control.
- The automobile struck the wooden guardrail on the outer edge of the curve.
- The railing, which had some decayed posts, broke upon impact, causing the car and the Davisons to fall to the ground below, resulting in severe injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Edwin F. Davison and his wife (plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit against Snohomish County (defendant) in a state trial court, alleging negligence.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the Davisons for $2,500.
- Snohomish County moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial.
- The trial court denied both of the county's motions and entered a final judgment based on the jury's verdict.
- Snohomish County (appellant) appealed the judgment 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 a county's maintenance of an elevated bridge approach with a partially decayed wooden guardrail, a slight downward outer slope, and a surface made slippery by wet dirt constitute negligence for which it is liable when an automobile skids, breaks through the railing, and falls?
Opinions:
Majority - Beals, J.
No. The county's maintenance of the bridge approach did not constitute negligence as a matter of law. A municipality's duty is to maintain its roads in a reasonably safe condition for ordinary travel, not to make them accident-proof. The court reasoned that it would be an unreasonable and financially unbearable burden to require municipalities to build guardrails strong enough to withstand the impact of an out-of-control automobile. Furthermore, the court found the other alleged defects—the very slight downward slope of the deck and the temporary slipperiness caused by wet dirt—to be too inconsequential, individually or combined, to legally constitute negligence. The incident was attributed to the 'eccentricities of an unmanageable automobile,' a contingency the county could not reasonably be expected to anticipate or prevent.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a crucial limitation on municipal liability for road and bridge maintenance, particularly in the age of the automobile. By holding that a municipality is not an insurer of safety, the court protected public entities from potentially overwhelming financial liability for every car accident. The ruling solidifies the 'reasonably safe' standard, clarifying that this does not include making roadways capable of containing vehicles that have lost control. This precedent forces future plaintiffs to prove that a road condition was dangerous for ordinary, prudent travel, rather than merely arguing that a stronger barrier could have prevented their specific accident.
Unlock the full brief for Davison v. Snohomish County