Acker v. Anderson County

• Decision Date: 08 March 1884
• Citation: 20 S.C. 495
• Parties: ACKER v. COUNTY OF ANDERSON.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

20 S.C. 495

ACKER v. COUNTY OF ANDERSON.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 8, 1884

1. A county is not responsible for injuries to a mule and buggy caused by the mule taking fright at a placard placed on a public bridge without the knowledge of the county commissioners, and removed by them so soon as it was brought to their attention.

2. Doubted , whether the county could have been held liable, even if the commissioners had allowed the placard to be posted, as, under the statute, action is given against the county for injuries only " through a defect in the repair of a highway, causeway or bridge."

3. The judge having charged upon the question of contributory negligence, his failure to state the doctrine more fully than he did, cannot be considered as error, no request so to charge having been made and the omission not being brought at the time to the judge's attention.

4. In his charge to the jury, the trial judge said: " Would a prudent man have driven his mule across the bridge with two ladies in his buggy, with the sign staring him in the face? Would a man of ordinary prudence have driven, or led, as Mr B. said he did?" Held , not a charge on the facts within the meaning of the constitutional inhibition. Article IV. , § 26.

Before ALDRICH, J., Anderson, February, 1882.

Action by Joshua Acker against the county of Anderson. The charge to the jury was as follows:

The legislation on which the plaintiff relies to support his action is good law. It makes the taxpayers mutual insurers for the protection of persons and property. This is right. If injury is done to the citizen by the carelessness, negligence or ignorance of its officers, whom the people have elected to perform the duties required by law, the whole body of the people who elected him should be held responsible for his acts.

The first question you will have to consider is, Was this sign or advertisement a public inconvenience, and did the county commissioners know not only of its existence but of its tendency to frighten horses and mules passing on the bridge? Second. Did they have it removed as soon as it came to their knowledge? The commissioners are bound by law to keep the bridge in repair. Was it safe?

There is a feature in this case you are bound to consider before you make the county liable: Did the plaintiff by his own negligence contribute to this accident? Would a prudent man have driven his mule across the bridge, with two ladies in his buggy, with the sign staring him in the face? If you conclude that this plaintiff contributed by his own negligence to the accident, he cannot recover. Would a man of ordinary prudence have driven, or led, across the bridge, as Mr. Breazeale said he did?

You will bear in mind that the commissioners cannot keep a guard at each bridge to prevent ingenious persons from painting their signs and placards on the bridges spanning the streams of the county. They are not insurers against accident. Their duty is to keep the highways and bridges in repair so as to facilitate travel and commerce. If the bridge was in good repair, and the placard not sufficient to frighten good work animals in harness, the county has done all it was required to do. Bridges are not to be constructed so as to make them safe against vicious, fractious and obstinate horses and mules, but to secure safe travel for well-broken animals. If you conclude this " force-pump" placard was a nuisance well calculated to scare horses; that it was not removed when the county commissioners had it brought to their notice, and that the plaintiff did not by his own negligence and imprudence contribute to the accident, then you will determine what damage he has sustained and render your verdict accordingly.

As to all other matters, the opinion fully states the case.

Mr. J. C. C. Featherston , for appellant.

Mr. B. F. Whitner , contra.

OPINION

MR JUSTICE MCGOWAN.

This was an action against the county of Anderson for damages to the plaintiff, in attempting to cross a public bridge over Rocky river, in said county. It seems that, in October, 1881 the plaintiff, with his daughter and granddaughter, in a buggy, was crossing the bridge when the mule drawing the buggy shied at an advertisement of a " force-pump," in large black letters, posted on the bridge. The mule backed the buggy towards the edge of the bridge and the plaintiff and his daughter managed to get out, but, striking the railing of the bridge, the railing gave away, and the mule and buggy, with the granddaughter, went over and fell eighteen or twenty feet. The buggy was broken to pieces, and the mule so crippled that he died in a day or two. The complaint charged that the injury was caused by the unlawful and negligent act of the officers of the county, in permitting the placard to be placed and to remain posted upon the bridge, and in negligently failing to repair the defects in the railing of the bridge-claiming damage to the extent of $300. The...