Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1910-12-09
Expensive Litigation


aggrayutcS the situation is our legiS
l..torS DC not seem disposed to sug
gr>t or proyid,any measures FOR re-
urf iu VII, regard. Moreover, in tht
brief history of our young common
wealth. the executives of this State
have failed to call the attention OF
tie puOlic to this matter that the
subject merits.
In this connection. the STANDARD
desires 10 refer to two classes Of con-
troverSies which appear frequently
upon The Superior Court dockets and
often incuipate the counties in great
expense which ought to be avoided,
or in any event reduced to 4 MIMI
mum. viz: negligence cases and
condemnation proceedings. Regard
Ing the former there seems to be re-
lief II sight. Employers and en-
ployes, through their organizations
and committees, have been endeavor-
ing to get together for the purpose
Of framing a bill for submission at
the approaching session of the Leg
islature, whereby controversies in
yolving the subject of negligence
may be adjusted without resort to
complicated legal machinery. by
which the employers are to waive the
defenses OF assumption OF risks, con-
tributory negligence and the anti
uuated fellow-servant doctrine; all OF
which in the stress of present eco
nomic conditions, the laborer is Of
ten compelled to accept the first job
III sight with its attendant risks,
therefore when he suffers injuries he
ought to be compensated. as far as
possible. If such q law shall be care
fully and properly framed, a great
reduction in court work will follow.
The ambulance-chaser will be out of
an occupation and the injured en-
ploye obtain what may be coming to
him and his family.
With respect to condemnation pro-
ceedings, the remedy appears to be
more remote. Fortunately many of
these con troversies are settled before
they come to trial in the courts, but
d sufficient number OF these Gisputa-
tions are brought before courts and
juries to make them exceedingly cost
ly to the taxpayers. A nominal jury
fee of twelve dollars advanced by the
petitioner does not 60 very far to-
wards paying court expense OF one
hundred dollars per day incurred by
the county, when the trial lasts a
week or more, as is often the case in
such controversies, tried in the coun-
ties of this State, at jury sessions,
with a promising increase as the
State developes and it may become
necessary to resort to such proceed
ings in order to lay out streets.
highways and build railroads. Pa
renthetically speaking. there is a
mistaken notion. quite prevalent
among citizens outside OF the legal
profession, that in civil actions the
losing party must pay the whole
jury cost and expense. while only the
twelve-dollar fee is taxed.
In many of the States procedure OF
eminent domain is instituted before
some municipal body, or local tri-
bunal, upon which jurisdiction has
been conferred by law. When the
parties cannot agree as to the value
of the property taken, or the dam.
ages sustained, each names an arbi-
traitor, the two select a third, who
hear the allegations and testimony.
The majority of the arbitrator have
power to make the award. Any
party feeling aggrieved may appeal
to higher court of record, by giving
q sufficient bond, and il more favor
able verdict or award shall not be
rendered before the latter tribunal,
then the appealing party shall pay
all costs including jury fees incurred
by the appeal; otherwise the costs
and fees are taxed against the ad-
verse party and the county is out
nothing on account of such fees and
costs.
Take the Gunstone case, recently
tried in the Superior Court OF Thurs
ton county for illustration, in which
the owner of the land involved re-
covered nineteen hundred dollars
damages, the costs including per
diem fees of jurors, amounted to sew
eral hundred dollars in addition to
the award. The trial lasted FIVE
days while other jurors off-duty re-
manned in attendance upon the court
drawing pay from the county.
Taking these facts into considera-
ton, the total expense to this county
cannot be less than six hundred dol
lars, which our taxpayers must liqui-
date. Under a law containing the
provisions suggested, the county
might have saved these additional
costs incident to the trial, or at
least have been protected by suf-
ticiont bond. One case of this kind
may not figure very materially, and
the county might occasionally SUBJ
NIT to an assessment of this kind
without much Inconvenience to the
taxpayers of the county, but in these
r1avS Of railway oOpctruo<;or o,+oL