Hospitalization Excuses City Hall's Negligence
The Washington State Supreme Court ruled that a citizen’s hospital stay is a valid reason for missing a 30-day window to file a claim against the city for street injuries.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
In a ruling handed down by the Supreme Court of Washington regarding the case of Otto Ehrhardt against the city of Seattle, the court has reversed a lower court decision that had dismissed Ehrhardt's complaint. Ehrhardt had been thrown from a wagon due to a defective street but failed to make his claim for damages within the city-mandated thirty-day period. The Supreme Court determined that because Ehrhardt was confined to a hospital and unaware of the full extent of his injuries until after that window had expired, he had a valid excuse for the delay. The court also rejected a challenge to the validity of the thirty-day charter provision itself, but established that genuine medical incapacity provides a necessary exception to such strict municipal rules.
“The extent of his injury was not known until after the time limit had elapsed, which, according to the rulings of the court, is a valid excuse.”
This ruling highlights a century-old tension between municipal liability protection and the realities of personal hardship. While modern cities still utilize 'notice of claim' provisions, this case serves as a reminder that administrative barriers are often challenged by the practicalities of human injury and recovery.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.