Brown's Adm'r. v. Town Of Guyandotte. *(HoLt

• Decision Date: 03 December 1890
• Citation: 34 W.Va. 299
• Parties: Brown's Adm'r. v. Town of Guyandotte.*(HoLt, Judge, absent.)
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

34 W.Va. 299

Brown's Adm'r.

v.Town of Guyandotte.

*(HoLt, Judge, absent.)

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted June 20, 1890.

Decided December 3, 1890.

1. Damages Towns Officers Agents.

As to the powers and functions of a town of a public governmental character, it is not liable for damages caused by the wrongful acts or negligence of its officers or agents therein.

2. Damages Towns Officers Agents.

A town is not liable for damages for the death of a person caused by the burning of its jail while such person was confined therein by town authority for a violation of its ordinances, though such fire was attributable to the wrongful act or negligence of the officers or agents of the town.

Gibson $ Michie for appellant, cited: Code c. 41, s. 43; 13 La. Ann. 275; 89 Mo. 208.

Simms § Enslow for appellee, cited:

17 Gratt. 375; 8 W. Va. 353; 5 La. Ann. 100; 9 La. Ann. 461; 31 Ala, 469; 18 Gratt, 344; 28 Gratt. 344; Bill. Mun. Corp. 971-981; 1 Allen. 172; Code c. 103.

Brannon, Judge.

Phillip Brown, administrator of Frank Brown, deceased, brought an action on the case against the town of Guyandotte in the Circuit Court of Cabell county to recover damages for injury to Frank Brown while confined in the lock-up of that town, caused by the burning of the jail, from which injury Brown died. The defendant's demurrer to the declaration was sustained, and judgment rendered for the defendant; and this is a writ of error to that judgment obtained by said plaintiff.

The declaration alleged, in substance, that the town had a jail or lock-up, wherein it was accustomed to confine persons arrested and convicted of offenses against the town; that Frank Brown was arrested by the marshal of the town, and placed in said jail, and confined therein by authority of the town, and that it thus became its duty to use all due and reasonable care and diligence to safely keep said Brown while so in custody; yet the defendant, not regarding its duty, did not use reasonable and proper means, care, and diligence to safely keep said Brown, but wholly, wrongfully, negligently, and injuriously failed to do so, and wrongfully, wilfully, and negligently suffered, permitted, and caused said jail to be destroyed by fire, whereby Brown was unable to get out by reason of his weak condition from the effect of a blow on the head, and was so badly burnt that he died.

The cases upon the subject of the liability of cities and towns in tort for the wrongful acts and negligence of their officers are numerous, the field of their discussion wide, and they draw nice distinctions. These municipal corporations, unlike private ones, are organized, not for gain, but for the public weal, as important instrumentalities in government, and they are supported by the taxation of their people, and should not be made liable for the acts of their officers, done in performance of purely governmental powers for the benefit of the public, and not their private benefit; for otherwise it would be impossible to say where their liabilities would end, or how onerous would be the burden laid upon those who sustain their existence. It seems to be well settled that they are not liable by implication for such acts done in their public capacity, as governing agencies, in the discharge of duties for the public or general (not corporate) benefit. Dill. Mun. Corp. § 966.

Shearman and Redfield, in their work on the Law of Negligence, § 253, very well state the rule as follows:" The governmental powers of the state are further exercised by a great number of municipal and quasi municipal organizations, such as cities, towns, counties, and boards, to which, for purposes of government, and for the benefit and service of the public, the state delegates portions of its sovereignty, to be exercised within particular portions of territory for certain well-defined public purposes. To the extent that such local or special organizations possess and exercise governmental powers they are, as it were, departments of state. As such, in the absence of any statute to the contrary, they have the privilege and immunity of the state. They partake of the state's prerogative of sovereignty, in that they are exempt from private prosecution for the consequences of their exercising or neglecting to, exercise the governmental powers they possess. To the extent that they exercise such powers, their duties are regarded as due to the public, not to individuals. Their...