Blakeley v. Laurens County

• Decision Date: 28 June 1899
• Citation: 33 S.E. 503,55 S.C. 422
• Parties: BLAKELEY v. LAURENS COUNTY.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

33 S.E. 503

55 S.C. 422

BLAKELEY v. LAURENS COUNTY.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

June 28, 1899

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Laurens county; D. A Townsend, Judge.

Action by Augustus Blakeley, by his guardian ad litem, against Laurens county. From an order of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Following are the exceptions on appeal:

"(1) Because his honor erred in granting the nonsuit herein dismissing the complaint, holding that the plaintiff's injury was not caused by the negligent construction or repair of the bridge described in the complaint, and in holding that the fright of the mule was the proximate cause of the injury. (2) Because he erred in not holding that there was testimony tending to show that the defective hole in the bridge was the proximate cause of the mule's backing the wagon off the bridge, causing the injury. (3) Because he erred in not holding that there was testimony tending to show that the alleged fright of the mule was caused by the hole in the floor of the bridge. (4) Because he erred in not holding that there was testimony tending to show that the plaintiff's injury would not have happened if the banisters of the bridge had not been wanting, and that the absence of the banisters was a defect in, or negligent repair of, the said bridge, through which the injury happened. (5) Because he erred in not holding that there was testimony tending to show that the said hole in the bridge and the absence of the railings constituted singly or together, a defect or negligent repair of the said bridge, which caused the plaintiff's injury. (6) Because he erred in not holding that it is the duty of the county board of commissioners to construct and maintain the public bridges of the county free from holes calculated to cause work animals to shy or run backward, and to keep said bridge supplied with banisters or railings to prevent vehicles from falling off in going forward or backward. (7) Because he should have held that, when an ordinarily safe work animal is frightened by a defect in, or negligent repair of, a public bridge, the injury produced by the frightened animal is chargeable to the defect of the bridge.

F. P McGowan, for appellant.

Ferguson & Featherstone, for respondent.

McIVER C.J.

This was an action to recover damages sustained by the plaintiff by reason of negligence on the part of the defendant in keeping in repair a bridge on a highway in the county of Laurens, while attempting to cross said bridge. The allegations in the complaint are that, at the time the disaster occurred, there was a hole in the floor of said bridge; that the bridge was too narrow for the safety of the traveling public, and part of the railing of the bridge was wanting, having been allowed to become rotten or fallen off; that the plaintiff was attempting to cross said bridge in a one-horse wagon drawn by a mule, and that "the mule, approaching the hole in the floor of the bridge, and in consequence of said hole, suddenly stopped, and pushed the wagon backward, running the wheels of the wagon along by the side of the railing, and rubbing the wheels against the same, until the wagon arrived at a point where the side railing of the bridge was down and absent, when the hind wheels of the wagon went overboard, throwing the plaintiff out of the wagon, and over the edge of the bridge, to the ground below, a distance of some 10 or 12 feet, and the hind wheels of the said wagon, in falling from the bridge, fell upon the plaintiff's arm, and broke, crushed, and fractured the same."

The testimony taken at the trial seems to be fully set out in the "case," and in it we find some testimony tending to support the material allegations of the complaint. When the testimony on the part of the plaintiff was closed, the counsel for defendant moved for a nonsuit, mainly upon the ground that the testimony shows that "the fright of the mule, and not that hole in the bridge, caused the injury." His honor, Judge Townsend, before whom the case was heard, granted the motion; saying that the testimony shows that the injury was caused by the fright of the mule, and not by the hole in the bridge, and that, as to the want of a railing, there was no law requiring a railing.

The plaintiff appealed upon the several grounds set out in the record, which need not be repeated here, as the only question in the case is whether there was any testimony in the case tending to show that the injury complained of was caused by the negligence of the defendant, not contributed to by any negligence on the part of the...