Court Opinion

ID: 9545944
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:22:35.399893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:48.269722
License: Public Domain

Hunter, J.
(dissenting) — The majority opinion holds, as a matter of law, that there is insufficient evidence to submit to the jury the factual issue of whether the roadway in question, as a result of the conduct of the City of Belling-ham, had become a city street by common law dedication. I disagree. In Spencer v. Arlington, 49 Wash. 121, 94 Pac. 904 (1908), cited in the majority opinion, we said:
“. . . It was for the jury to determine whether the place was within a public street. A dedication and acceptance may be implied from a general and long-continued use by the public as of right. Elliott, Roads and Streets (2d ed.), § 154; 2 Dillon, Mun. Corp. (4th ed.), §§ 638, 642; Raymond v. Wichita, 70 Kan. 523, 79 Pac. 323. Making repairs and improvements and inviting the public to travel may be considered as evidence of the adoption of a highway by a municipality, and it may be thereby estopped to deny that the way is a public one and under its control. 5 Thompson, Commentaries on the Law of Negligence, § 5941. . . . ”
The record discloses the following evidence, which the jury was entitled to believe in support of a common law dedication or estoppel of the city, that the roadway was a city street:
*221In 1946 the City of Bellingham constructed a city housing project adjacent to Carolina Street and within the city limits. A U-shaped roadway was constructed through the area for the use of the residents of the units and by anyone having business with the residents or cause to traverse said roadway. It was open for the general use of the public as was any residential street in the City of Bel-lingham. It looked like other residential streets. It had the same surface as other streets in the vicinity, was the same width, and was maintained by the city street department. It was traversed by the public. The roadway was never closed by any notice or physical barrier.
Under this evidence the trial court correctly submitted the issue of whether the roadway, constructed and maintained within the housing development, was a city street. The jury by its verdict answered the question in the affirmative.
The other assignments of error raise questions which are not supported by law or factual questions which were properly submitted and resolved by the jury.
The judgment of the trial court entered upon the jury verdict should be affirmed.
March 4, 1963. Petition for rehearing denied.