Elbert County v. Threlkeld

• Decision Date: 15 April 1916
• Docket Number: (No. 363.)
• Citation: 88 S.E. 683,145 Ga. 133
• Parties: ELBERT COUNTY. v. THRELKELD.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

145 Ga. 133

88 S.E. 683

ELBERT COUNTY.

v.THRELKELD.

(No. 363.)

Supreme Court of Georgia.

April 15, 1916.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Elbert County; D. W. Meadow, Judge.

Action by J. L. Threlkeld against Elbert County. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

Z. B. Rogers, of Elberton, for plaintiff in error.

Geo. C. Grogan, of Elberton, for defendant in error.

EVANS, P. J. J. L. Threlkeld recovered judgment against Elbert county for certain injuries to his mule, which fell through a public bridge while being led across it by his minor son. The evidence tended to show that the injury was caused by the breaking of a rotten sill. The testimony of the plaintiff was to the effect that the defective sill was not discoverable by one passing over the bridge. The defendant introduced a witness who testified that about a week before the accident he was traveling along the road on which the bridge was located. When he reached the bridge he discovered that it "was in sort of bad condition. It was sunk down. * * * It was in such shape that anybody driving up to it in the daytime could see it. * * * The bridge looked dangerous, and I said, 'I don't know whether we can cross it or not.'" The witness led his horse across the bridge.

1. The jury were instructed that if the plaintiff's son who was leading the mule knew of the defects in the bridge, and used ordinary care to avoid injury, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover, "regardless of the fact that he knew about the unsafety of the bridge." One of the contentions of the defendant was that the bridge was in an obviously dangerous condition; and that if the plaintiff's son, with a knowledge of that fact, led his father's mule over the bridge, the plaintiff could not recover. A traveler upon a public highway is not required in every case to suspend his journey because a bridge on the public highway may be in a defective condition. But he cannot hold the county liable if the danger is obviously of such a character that driving over the bridge, in and of itself, amounts to a want of ordinary care and diligence. The rule has thus been stated by this court:

"A traveler exercising due care may, although he knows there is some danger in driving over a defective portion of a street which a city has negligently failed to put in safe condition, recover for the injuries thus sustained, unless the danger is obviously of such a character that driving over the place in question, in...