The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-02-10
CITY NOT LIABLE.
.~~r rornT DECISION IN THE
.~rxrx WATER zAfx CASE
-. nresrht by the Fidelity and
raszaffy ccEpsny. which Had 70
No. Insurance. On the Damage
49,. 90 the Olympic Building by
ske Pfsn~er Place -Geys~r-eisf
~ the Decfssoa.

rs.~ ~su nor Ne hsi6 for Ere damage
- .n<-s. .sz.s ago ~ fhe bursting % a
80 r~ssn on Pioneer place. TIE SUI
-. ~e,srt bas affirmed the decision OF
.sy.s~soF eogsyt "a favor cf the defend
-. = 80 action brought by TIE Fidelity
- r.suslsy Company against the city
- eanpany bad 20 ray Insurance On
.s~ee tran@om iiEnfs and three lower
,sssss az plate glass. broken By the throw
- w.tey from ths pipe, and thought the
cir shouif b hsse rs~ 2onsioie. e sc-
49, haopsusd 4 viii be remembered,
800 ssurr 4 Wnuot. under contract TO
80 esty. we're preparing first avenue and
rssisr way soT paving. They uncovered
80 wasev main or YesBsr way. II front
- aan Olympic block Whlls tearing
sown a foundation gRI. a large piece Of
e1zer~ss fssl on IN. main ard the pipe
$50 fnrexinx water nIlsd with dir and
xrsysl clear 70 rns top Of fhs building.
ia appealing tie case % the supreme
eeagf. there we're four assignments Of
srFsr. The first and second were IN rels-
use 70 szs jury. The third was that Tne
esars erred fl refusing 70 grant plaintiffs
ssess0n 20 SCI aside tie verdict and grant
a ssw trial. snG t4s fourth that the YER
esrt waS contrary 70 tia evidence. II
was claimed that the Judges instructions
virtually indicated g the jury that the
orig duty Of tas pi<iutiE was 70 look al
me pipe, ard e no defects were visible II
wsS warranted IL placing the pipe. where.
II & burst. great damage would be caused
sed peraapx loss Of lie ensue. II was
canned that lasts should have been made
e ascertain the dstsets OF the pipe. The
sspssrzs court considered tae objection
sas-ssfehe1. snG had no DOUBT that tho
f4 "a
sansh.s inspection meant such an exarni-
nsllan a. vas necessary 70 dstersnine the
essiity Of ths pipe
Tie second Instruction com pbalnsd OF
vas as to the measure o. damages The
court instructed the jury that the maaslTe
o. damages was the differences between
shAt the gtgss broken was worth immsdl-
siey before Il wss broken. The complaint
shaged that the psalntiff was damaged by
ths defendant by reason Of It's breaking
B. sd destroying glass ia the doors ard
SHADOWS o. said building OF great value.
% sit. Sc. %" II wss Insisted By the ap-
psi1ant mat the rule OF damages should
rot b. varied 20 meet the requirements Of
peadlnzs but that ~ should De stated gem
crazy. ard that the lower court should
have Instructed the jury that the measure
u damages should include not only the
Yslas OF the glass but the expense OF re-
answer To this objection said that no ele-
meat Of damages could be awarded the
psainttn that was not claimed Ia the COM
psasnL The instruction OF the superior
eoggt aas held 10 De substantially correct.
u concluding the Judgment tho supreme
ee4rt says;
Even II the court had not given the
proper instruction IL Was absolutely Inn
material under the evidence, for the jury
fal.es To find any damages AZ All. and must
have So failed 10 ind ac gsluse IN their fud.C-
msnt the defendant was not proven guilty
Of neglect under the Instructions OF the
court which we think were proper. The
tso other assignments 40 to the suffioiancy
OF the testimony TO sustain the verdict or
rather that the verdict was contrary TO the
ess6sHce
We have examined the testimony In this
case. it was submitted TO the fury under
proper Instructions, and It's verdict VIII not
Be disturbed BY this court. The Judgment
l. affirmed
The city's case was conducted by Cor
toFatien Counsel J. X. Brown.