City Council of Augusta v. Hudson
| Decision Date | 16 July 1894 |
| Citation | 21 S.E. 289,94 Ga. 135 |
| Parties | CITY COUNCIL OF AUGUSTA v. HUDSON. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. If there was any error in admitting in evidence the map of Hamburg, S. C., it was not cause for a new trial.
2. According to the decision in this case when before this court the first time (88 Ga. 599, 15 S.E. 678), it was not incumbent on the plaintiff, in order to establish liability on the part of the defendant, to prove "that, under the statutes of South Carolina, the city is liable civilly for a failure to keep the bridge in repair."
3. The approaches to a toll bridge and its abutments, as well as the bridge proper, must be kept in repair by the owner, the whole having been erected by him, and, so far as appears, no duty resting upon the public to maintain the approaches or abutments as a part of the highway. The defect complained of having existed for a considerable period of time, no question could properly arise as to the duty of the owner to take notice of it.
4. An allegation that railing was absent from the abutment of the bridge may be supported by proof that it was absent from the approach to the bridge.
5. Where a mule, which was being driven to a wagon over a toll bridge owned and kept by a city, became frightened by a train on a railroad near by, ran away, and, because of the absence of a guard rail from the approach to or abutment of the bridge, was precipitated from the structure down a high embankment, the absence of the guard rail was a sufficiently proximate cause of the catastrophe to render the city liable for injuries to person and property thereby occasioned, if such absence was due to the city's negligence.
6. The judge of the superior court has no legal power to receive or hear affidavits of jurors to impeach their verdict.
7. There was nothing in the charges or refusals to charge in relation to the credibility of witnesses, or to the measure of damages, which requires a new trial. There was no error in refusing to grant a nonsuit. The evidence warranted the verdict, and there was no error in denying a new trial.
Error from superior court, Richmond county; H. C. Roney, Judge.
Action by John W. Hudson against the city council of Augusta. Plaintiff had judgment, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
John S Davidson and W. T. Davidson, for plaintiff in error.
Boykin Wright and H. Phinizy, for defendant in error.
The first trial of this case resulted in a verdict for the defendant. The court below granted a new trial, and its judgment was affirmed. 88 Ga. 599, 15 S.E. 678. At the second trial there was a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant's motion for a new trial, containing 24 grounds, was overruled, and it excepted, and brought the case here for review. It is unnecessary to deal with the grounds of the motion seriatim. In quite a number of them no new or important legal question is presented, and, in disposing of the others, they may be treated in groups.
1. Complaint was made that the court erred in admitting in evidence a map of the town of Hamburg, S. C., the ground of objection being that the map had not been properly authenticated or proved as required by law. Whether the map ought to have been received or not, certainly admitting it was no cause for a new trial. Indeed, if the town of Hamburg itself had been put in evidence before the jury (provided such a thing were possible) it would hardly have had an appreciable effect upon the deliberations of the jury. Seriously, there is no profit whatever in bringing to this court so trivial a question as that now presented.
2. When this case was here before, we decided that the city council of Augusta, as the owner and keeper of a toll bridge over the Savannah river, was liable for negligence in failing to keep the abutment resting upon the South Carolina shore in safe condition for use by customers, and that this liability existed even though it might be the law of South Carolina that a municipal corporation of that state would not be liable for like negligence touching a similar bridge owned by it. We thought this portion of the law of the case was thus definitely settled. We were quite serious in laying down what we understood to be the law applicable, and we now adhere to our former conclusion. Consequently, we say, emphatically the court did not err in refusing to charge that the defendant was not liable unless the plaintiff proved that, "under the statutes of South Carolina, the city is liable civilly for a failure to keep the bridge in repair."
3. The evidence shows that the entire bridge structure, including the approaches...
To continue reading
Request your trial