City of Goshen v. Myers
| Decision Date | 28 May 1889 |
| Docket Number | 13,773 |
| Parties | The City of Goshen v. Myers |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Elkhart Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed.
J. A Simmons, H. D. Wilson and W. J. Davis, for appellant.
W. L Stonex and E. E. Mummert, for appellee.
Coffey J. Mitchell, J., took no part in the decision of this case.
It is averred in the complaint in this cause that the appellant is a municipal corporation, and that, on the 25th day of August, 1886, there was a public bridge within the corporate limits of the said city of Goshen, which it was bound to keep in repair; that it permitted said bridge to become so much out of repair that, on said day, while the appellee was driving across the same with due care and without any knowledge of its unsafe condition, the planks thereon broke under his horse and he was thereby injured, to the damage of the appellee.
The cause was put at issue by a general denial. At the request of the appellant the court found the facts specially and stated its conclusions of law thereon. The facts as found by the court are, substantially, that the city of Goshen was organized as a town in the year 1831, and in the year 1868 it was organized as a city under the general laws of the State providing for the organization of cities. The bridge named in the complaint was constructed by Elkhart county, on what is known as the Lima State road, twenty-seven rods east of the east end of Market street, in the city of Goshen, but within the corporate limits of said city. The land has never been platted into lots between the east end of Market street and the bridge, and on the east side of the bridge the land never was platted into lots, except a small addition fronting on the said Lima State road, fourteen rods east of said bridge, but buildings are erected and occupied on both sides of said Lima road east of the bridge, none being nearer than fourteen rods, but all being within the city limits of said city, the corporation line being one-fourth of a mile east of said bridge. The bridge was constructed in the year 1877, at a cost of twelve hundred dollars, which was paid out of the general county funds. Up to the date of the injury complained of, the bridge had never been repaired, either by the county or city, and it had been out of repair and dangerous for more than one year prior to the injury complained of, of which fact the city had notice. Prior to the injury set up in the complaint, the city of Goshen had taken charge of the Lima road within the city, and had graded it, as well as the streets in the addition to said city east of said bridge. At the time of the injury complained of, the appellee attempted to drive over said bridge with a span of horses and a wagon, and while doing so with due care, a worn out and decayed plank broke by reason of one of said horses stepping on it, and the horse partly fell through the hole made thereby and was permanently injured, to the appellee's damage in the sum of eighty-five dollars. The appellee had no knowledge of the dangerous condition of the bridge, and said injury occurred without any fault or negligence on his part.
Upon these facts the court stated as conclusions of law: 1st. That the appellant was liable for the injury to the appellee's horse. 2d. That the appellee was entitled to recover eighty-five dollars.
The appellant assigns as error: 1st. That the court erred in its conclusions of law. 2d. The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. 3d. The court erred in overruling the appellant's motion in arrest of judgment.
It is earnestly contended by the appellant, by its counsel, that it was not bound to keep the bridge now under consideration in repair, and, not being so bound, that it is not liable for any injury that resulted to the appellee's property by reason of any defect therein. On the other hand, it is contended by the appellee that cities in this State have the exclusive control of all public bridges within their corporate limits, and that they are bound to keep them in repair, and that they are liable for all injuries that may result to others without their negligence by reason of the neglect to perform that duty.
It will be seen that a correct...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Klepinger v. Board of Com'rs of Miami County, s. 767--A--23
...would have been liable in damages. Flowers v. Board of Commissioners of the County of Vanderburgh, et al, supra; The City of Goshen v. Myers (1889), 119 Ind. 196, 21 N.E. 657. '2. The decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence in the the following 'a. The affidavits submi......
-
Miller v. Griesel
...footnote 1.7 For a chronological development of the governmental immunity doctrine, see the following cases: City of Goshen v. Myers (1889), 119 Ind. 196, 21 N.E. 657; City of Logansport v. Public Service Commission (1931), 202 Ind. 523, 177 N.E. 249; Flowers v. Board of Commissioners of Va......
-
Harrison v. Veolia Water Ind.Polis LLC, 49A04-0912-CV-722.
...common law sovereign immunity began arising, starting in Indiana in 1889. Id., 284 N.E.2d at 734-35 (quoting City of Goshen v. Myers, 119 Ind. 196, 199, 21 N.E. 657, 658-59 (1889)). One principle that became well-settled was “that if a governmental body is negligent in performing a propriet......
-
HARRISON V. VEOLIA WATER Ind.POLIS LLC, 49A04-0912-CV-722
...common law sovereign immunity began arising, starting in Indiana in 1889. Id., 284 N.E.2d at 734-35 (quoting City of Goshen v. Myers, 119 Ind. 196, 199, 21 N.E. 657, 658-59 (1889)). One principle that became well-settled was "that if a governmental body is negligent in performing a propriet......