Barbour County v. Reeves

• Decision Date: 19 January 1928
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 329
• Citation: 116 So. 119,217 Ala. 415
• Parties: BARBOUR COUNTY v. REEVES.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

116 So. 119

217 Ala. 415

BARBOUR COUNTY v. REEVES.

4 Div. 329

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 19, 1928

Rehearing Denied April 12, 1928

Appeal from Circuit Court, Barbour County; J.S. Williams, Judge.

Action by McNab M. Reeves against Barbour County for damages to an automobile caused by the falling of a bridge. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

W.H Merrill and McDowell & McDowell, all of Eufaula, for appellant.

Chauncey Sparks, of Eufaula, for appellee.

SAYRE J.

This appeal involves the construction of section 6457 of the Code as applied to the peculiar facts shown in evidence. Appellee claimed damages for that the Upper Barbour bridge, forming a part of a public road, having become defective through age and decay, fell under the weight of his automobile, causing the substantial destruction of the machine. A bridge across Barbour creek at the place in question had been built for the county in 1884 by a contractor, with a guaranty for three years. Excepting interruptions to be noted, the bridge, or a bridge at the same place, had been maintained by the road authorities of the county as a constituent part of the highway from that time down to the time of the accident in which appellee lost his automobile. On two previous occasions the bridge had been seriously damaged by floods, and in the summer of 1916 had been so completely destroyed that, when it was reconstructed in the spring of 1917, there remained fit for use, and was used, only one mudsill which had been embedded in the marl constituting the bed of the creek beneath the bridge.

Appellee would sustain the judgment on three considerations of law and fact, viz.: (1) That, when a bridge has been built by a contractor for the county, liability for the safe condition of any bridge at the same point remains with the county until the public road of which the bridge has become a part has been abandoned at that point as public road authorities may abandon roads; (2) that under the evidence it was open to the jury to find that the bridge here in question had been repaired merely, that its identity with the bridge erected in 1884 remained, and that under the statute (section 6457 of the Code) the county was liable; and, alternatively, (3) that the bridge of 1917 had been erected, not by the county, but by contract, and so, without reference to other contentions the county was liable under section 6457.

Considering these several contentions in the order of their statement our opinion is that the statute should not be given the construction for which appellee contends. The statute (section 6457 of the Code) reads thus:

"6457. Damages for Injury by Defect in Bridge or Causeway.--When a bridge or causeway has been erected by contract with the county commissioners, with a guaranty by bond or otherwise, that it shall continue safe for the passage of travelers and other persons for a stipulated time, any person injured, in person or property, before the expiration of such period, by a defect in such bridge or causeway, may sue in his own name on the bond or other guaranty, and recover damages for the injury, and if no guaranty has been taken, or the period has expired, may sue and recover damages of the county."

The section means in our judgment that the county is liable, during the life of a contract bridge, if no guaranty has been taken or the period covered by the guaranty has expired. We do not construe the section as intending that, if a county enters into a contract for the construction of a public bridge, it thereby becomes liable in perpetuity for defects in any bridge that may thereafter be erected by the county at the same place, so long at least as successive bridges may serve as constituent parts of the highway at the same place. In Greene County v. Eubanks, 80 Ala. 204, it is said that:

"The liability of a county for damage, caused by a defect in a bridge erected by contract, commences on a failure to take a guaranty, or if taken, at the

...