Court Opinion

ID: 9607202
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:56:19.196373+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:37.614706
License: Public Domain

Ott, J.
(dissenting)—The majority reverse the trial judge on conflicting evidence because:
“. . . The evidence as to the cause of the slide was sharply conflicting. The findings of the trial court do not resolve the problem and do not enable us to resolve the factual dispute.”
The court’s finding No. 6 is as follows:
“That plaintiffs [appellants] and cross-complainants *824Erickson failed to allege or prove that the conduct of defendants [respondents] Edwards on their property was wrongful and failed in meeting the burden of proof that plaintiffs’ and cross-complainants Ericksons’ damages and injuries were caused by placing of fill on defendants Edwards’ premises in 1946; that, in fact, the damages and injuries of plaintiffs and cross-complainants Erickson were caused by a heavy flow of water down said water course combined with some dirt picked up as the upper end of the water course retreated up the hill; nor were plaintiffs’ injuries caused by any defect because of any cut made in the toe of the slope.”
The record amply supports the finding of the court that the appellants built their home in the mouth of a natural water course or ravine, and that the respondents changed the elevation of their property in the year 1946. In 1956, an unprecedented rainfall caused only a small part of the Edwards’ elevation to wash away. Four other slides, emanating from property of others not parties to this proceeding, occurred in the same area. There was no evidence that any of respondents’ soil ever reached the appellants’ property. Even the majority admit that there was a failure of proof as to respondents Edwards’ liability when they say: “. . . appellants’ home was not demolished by water, but by a large volume of dirt or mud, either from the Edwards’ fill or from other portions of the slope . . .” (Italics mine.) The majority opinion is in accord with the findings of the trial court that appellant had not sustained the burden of proof.
The evidence most certainly does not preponderate against the court’s findings.
The offer of proof of William Enkeboll’s testimony was improperly excluded, for the reasons stated in the majority opinion. Mere exclusion of offered evidence is not a ground for reversal; the appellants must show that they were prejudiced by its exclusion. The decision of the trial court was not based upon the evidence as to where the slide started, but rather on the fact that the damage was caused “by a heavy flow of water . . . combined with some dirt.” *825Therefore, in the absence of a further showing that the “dirt” that caused the damage was that of respondents, the offered testimony of Enkeboll relating to the origin of the slide would not have affected the result, and its exclusion was not prejudicial to the appellants. Sather v. Blodgett, 169 Wash. 25, 13 P. (2d) 60 (1932).
The judgment should be affirmed.
•Mallery and Donworth, JJ., concur, with Ott, J.
June 4, 1959. Petition for rehearing denied.