City Council Of Augusta v. Little

• Decision Date: 02 April 1902
• Parties: CITY COUNCIL OF AUGUSTA v. LITTLE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

41 S.E. 238

115 Ga. 124

CITY COUNCIL OF AUGUSTA

v.LITTLE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

April 2, 1902.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS—GRADING SIDEWALK—ERROR IN PLAN—LIABILITY OF CITY.

1. A municipal corporation is not liable for personal injuries resulting from an error in a plan, adopted in pursuance of its legislative power, for the grading and constructing of its sidewalks.

2. By the act of 1892 the city engineer of Augusta has full authority to determine, as a legislative or judicial act, upon the grade and plan of construction of the sidewalks of the city.

3. Where, in a suit against the city for injuries, no fault is shown except that the plan and grade adopted by the city engineer was an erroneous one, and the evidence as to that is in conflict, a verdict finding the city liable is contrary to law.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from city court of Richmond county; W. F. Eve, Judge.

Action by Lena Little against the city council of Augusta. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

Wm. H. Barrett, for plaintiff in error.

P. T. Sullivan, for defendant in error.

SIMMONS, C. J. Suit was brought against the city council of Augusta by Mrs. Little for the homicide of her husband, which, shealleged, was occasioned by a defect in a sidewalk within the corporate limits. This defect was in having the sidewalk about level from the buildings thereon to within 29 inches of the asphalt street paving, where the sidewalk sloped or had a fall of 29° to the curb which joins it with the asphalt paving. Upon this sloping portion of the sidewalk plaintiff's husband, an old man, slipped and fell, thereby receiving injuries from which he died. The city denied liability, and set up as a part of its defense that fixing the grade of the sidewalk was a judicial act, and that the city was not liable for an error in judgment in fixing the grade. On the trial of the case evidence was introduced which tended to show that the grade was too steep, and that the place was dangerous; one witness having, in the course of several years, seen three or four persons fall at this place. The defendant introduced evidence to the effect that the place was not dangerous, one witness testifying that he had for several years occupied a store near by, and had never seen any one fall on account of the declivity. A witness who had been city engineer at the time the grade was established and the sidewalk built testified that the grade was safe and proper, and that the sidewalk was constructed in accordance with the general plans adopted for sidewalks in other places of similar character in the city; that, after considering several methods of fixing such places, this was adopted as best. He further testified that the same method had been adopted in other cities. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant made a motion for a new trial, and, when it was overruled, excepted.

The main and controlling question in the case is whether the city was liable to the plaintiff after it had been shown that the grade under consideration had been established under the direction and authority of the city authorities. It is now settled in this state that, where the legislature delegates governmental authority to a municipal corporation, the municipality is not liable to private individuals for any error in performing legislative or judicial powers. The adoption by a municipal corporation of a plan for grading the streets and sidewalks of a city is a quasi judicial act, and, if the plan adopted be erroneous, the city cannot be held liable to a private person who is injured thereby. If the execution of this plan—the construction of the pavement—be unskillful or negligent the city would be liable, for the construction would be a...