Gray v. City of Batesville

• Decision Date: 18 March 1905
• Citation: 86 S.W. 295
• Parties: GRAY v. CITY OF BATESVILLE et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

86 S.W. 295

GRAY v. CITY OF BATESVILLE et al.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

March 18, 1905.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Independence County; Frederick D. Fulkerson, Judge.

Action by John H. Gray against the city of Batesville and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Action by John H. Gray against the city of Batesville, and the mayor and members of the city council, for damages caused from a defective bridge within the city limits which had been permitted to fall into disrepair, and which the city had negligently failed to repair. The trial court instructed the jury to return a verdict for the defendants, which was done; judgment was rendered accordingly, and the plaintiff appealed to this court.

Yancey & Casey and Morris M. Cohn, for appellant. Oldfield & Cole, for appellees.

McCULLOCH, J.

This case, as to the question of liability of the city, falls squarely within the rule announced in Collier v. Ft. Smith, 84 S. W. 480, Ft. Smith v. York, 52 Ark. 84, 12 S. W. 157, and Arkadelphia v. Winham, 49 Ark. 139, 4 S. W. 450, 4 Am. St. Rep. 32, and is controlled by them.

Nor are the mayor or members of the city council liable for a failure to repair the bridge. Officers or members of municipal bodies charged with discretionary duties and powers with reference to public improvements are quasi judicial officers to that extent, and are not liable to damages for the improper exercise of those discretionary powers. Lee v. Huff, 61 Ark. 494, 33 S. W. 846; 23 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, pp. 376, 377; Pawlowski v. Jenks, 115 Mich. 275, 73 N. W. 238; Fath v. Koeppel, 72 Wis. 289, 39 N. W. 539, 7 Am. St. Rep. 867; Smith v. Gould, 61 Wis. 31, 20 N. W. 369; Hannon v. Grizzard, 96 N. C. 293, 2 S. E. 600; Daniels v. Hathaway, 65 Vt. 247, 26 Atl. 970, 21 L. R. A. 377.

Judgment affirmed.