Board of Commissioners of Porter County v. Dombke

• Decision Date: 08 March 1884
• Docket Number: 10,839
• Citation: 94 Ind. 72
• Parties: Board of Commissioners of Porter County v. Dombke
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

94 Ind. 72

Board of Commissioners of Porter County v. Dombke

No. 10,839

Supreme Court of Indiana

March 8, 1884

From the Porter Circuit Court.

Judgment affirmed.

W Johnston, for appellant.

E. D Crumpacker and J. H. Gillett, for appellee.

OPINION

Elliott, J.

The appellee filed a verified claim in the form of a complaint before the board of commissioners of Porter county, alleging that he had received injuries because of the negligence of the county authorities in suffering a bridge of the county to become unsafe. The decision of the board was against him, and he appealed to the circuit court and recovered judgment.

No attack was made on the complaint until after verdict in the circuit court, when the appellant moved in arrest of judgment. It is objected to the complaint that it does not show that the injury occurred without the negligence or fault of the appellee. We are not altogether clear that the objection is not ill in point of fact, for there are facts stated which inferentially show that the injury was attributable solely to the negligence of the appellant. But we do not deem it necessary to pass upon that question.

It will be observed that the complaint was filed in the commissioners' court, and our decisions establish the rule that no formal pleadings are necessary in such cases. In the case of Board, etc., v. Ritter, 90 Ind. 362, the question is thoroughly discussed and the cases reviewed, and it is held that the rules of pleading which prevail in the courts of superior jurisdiction do not apply to complaints in the commissioners' court. In the complaint before us there are facts sufficient to fully apprise the appellant of the nature of the appellee's claim, and to so fully exhibit the character of the controversy as to make a judgment on it a bar to any other action for the same cause. We are satisfied that, under the decision in the case cited and the many decisions there referred to, the complaint is good.

Where a person is suffering from an injury caused by another's negligence, it is proper to prove what was said at the time concerning the character of the pain or hurt. It is not, however, competent to give a narrative of a past occurrence. It was competent to show the character of the highway and its frequent use by travellers at the place where it connected with the bridge. It was competent for the purpose of enabling the jury to get an accurate knowledge of the place where the injury occurred.

Judgments are not reversed because the trial court permits leading questions to be put to a witness, unless it clearly appears that there was an abuse of discretion working injury to the complaining party. In the present case there was no abuse of discretion.

A person injured by the negligence of another may show the character of the injury as it exists at the time of the trial. It is settled law that a plaintiff in such a case may recover for injuries of a permanent character.

The trial court did right in directing the jury that the county was charged with the duty of maintaining its bridges in a reasonably safe condition for travel. Board, etc v. Legg, 93 Ind. 523. It is true that a county is not an insurer of the safety of its bridges, but it is also true that the county is bound to use ordinary care and diligence in constructing and maintaining...