Cox v. Ware County
| Decision Date | 26 October 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 24697.,24697. |
| Citation | 52 Ga.App. 45,182 S.E. 408 |
| Parties | COX. v. WARE COUNTY. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Error from City Court of Waycross; G W. Pittman, Judge.
Suit by F. C. Cox against Ware County. Judgment for defendant, plaintiff's motion for a new trial was overruled, and plaintiff brings error.
Reversed.
Herbert W. Wilson and E. O. Blalock, both of Waycross, for plaintiff in error.
J. H. Quarterman and W. C. Parker, both of Waycross, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. Under the act of 1888 (Ga. Laws 1888, p. 39), embodied in the Code 1933, § 95-1001, making counties "primarily liable for all injuries caused by reason of any defective bridges, whether erected by contractors or county authorities, " it is the duty of the county authorities to construct and to maintain bridges built since that enactment, in a workmanlike and proper manner, so that any person may use them in safety, in ordinary travel. Lincoln County v. Gaz-zaway, 43 Ga. App. 358 (2), 158 S. E. 647; Meriwether County v. Gilbert, 42 Ga. App. 500, 501(1), 156 S. E. 472. However, "county authorities are not insurers of the safety of county bridges, but are only bound to exercise ordinary care in maintaining and repairing them." Warren County v. Evans, 118 Ga. 200, 44 S. E. 986; Warren County v. Battle, 48 Ga. App. 240, 241(2), 172 S. E. 673; Stamps v. Newton County, 8 Ga. App. 229, 230, 68 S. E. 947. The duty of making a bridge safe for ordinary travel does not generally require that a bridge be constructed or maintained so as to sustain unusual, extraordinary, or unexpected loads, which would not reasonably be anticipated by the county authorities, but only that the bridge be kept of sufficient strength to sustain loads which, from the nature of the travel, the business of the road, and the occupations of the locality where it is situated, are likely to be imposed on it. 9 C. J. 478-480, and citations. If the county authorities, however, have actual knowledge or express or implied notice that a bridge is to be used or is being used by trucks of an unusual weight in travel over the bridge in the locality where it is located, it then becomes the duty of the authorities to exercise ordinary care in prohibiting or warning against such use, or in maintaining and repairing the bridge for safe travel by such trucks and their occupants. Except in clear cases, whether these duties of anticipation and the exercise of ordinary diligence, under all the facts and circumstances, were performed by the county, are questions of fact for the jury rather than of law. 9 C. J. 492, 495.
2. In the instant suit against a county for personal injuries sustained in the fall of a truck through a county bridge over a creek, when one of the sills and some of the boards on the left side of the bridge broke under the weight of the truck, it was undisputed that the truck with its load of rosin and turpentine and the men thereon, including the plaintiff, weighed between 11, 000 and 12, 000 pounds. There was testimony, however, from one of the defendant's witnesses, who was an inspector of the county bridges, that the county "had a great deal of trouble because of heavy loads coming out" from the turpentine still where the load in this case originated, and that they tried to "inspect the bridges two or three times a month, especially where there were heavy loads being hauled over them." Other witnesses...
To continue reading
Request your trial