## Facts

- Edwin F. Davison and his wife sued Snohomish County for personal injuries and property damage after their automobile left the elevated approach to a bascule bridge over Ebey Slough.
- The approach included a right-angle turn near the bridge; the bridge was about 18 feet wide, and the approach widened at the curve to about 30.9 feet before narrowing again.
- Around 8:00 p.m. on November 11, 1926, plaintiffs drove eastbound across the bridge at a low speed; as the car rounded the curve, it skidded, struck the outer-edge railing, broke through it, and fell to the ground.
- Plaintiffs alleged the county was negligent because (a) the railing was insufficient and its supporting posts were decayed, (b) the deck sloped outward and downward from the center toward the outer edge at the curve, and (c) dirt from nearby road work remained on the deck, making it slippery when wet.
- The county denied negligence and asserted contributory negligence.
- A jury awarded plaintiffs $2,500; the trial court denied the county’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial, and entered judgment on the verdict.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence permitted a finding that Snohomish County breached its duty of ordinary care to keep the bridge approach reasonably safe for ordinary travel.
2. Whether alleged defects—an allegedly inadequate guardrail, an outward-sloping deck on a curve, and dirt on the deck—constituted actionable negligence on this record, including whether the county had notice of the dirt condition.
3. Whether the case should have been withheld from the jury because the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law, requiring judgment for the county.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the judgment for the plaintiffs and directed dismissal of the action.
- The court held the evidence did not establish negligence and did not justify submitting the negligence question to the jury.
- The court concluded the county’s duty was ordinary care to maintain reasonable safety for ordinary travel, not to guarantee protection against all vehicle skids or impacts.
- On the dirt theory, the court found no basis for liability absent proof the county had actual or constructive notice of the condition.

## Legal Principles

- A county must exercise ordinary care to keep public roads, bridges, and approaches reasonably safe for ordinary travel; it is not an insurer of travelers’ safety.
- Negligence is not shown merely because a bridge-approach railing fails to prevent a skidding automobile from leaving the roadway.
- Negligence is not established solely by evidence that a bridge-approach deck slopes toward the outer edge on a curve, where the condition is not shown to be unreasonably unsafe for ordinary travel.
- Liability for a transient hazardous condition (such as dirt creating slipperiness) requires evidence that the public entity had actual or constructive notice in time to correct or warn.

## Conclusion

The court held that, on this evidence, Snohomish County did not breach its duty to maintain the bridge approach in a reasonably safe condition for ordinary travel; because the alleged conditions did not amount to actionable negligence (and the county lacked notice of any dirt hazard), the plaintiffs’ verdict could not stand and the action was dismissed.


Davison v. Snohomish County, 149 Wash. 109, 270 P. 422 (Wash. 1928)