Hackney v. Coweta County

• Decision Date: 13 March 1903
• Citation: 43 S.E. 725,117 Ga. 327
• Parties: HACKNEY v. COWETA COUNTY.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

43 S.E. 725

117 Ga. 327

HACKNEY v. COWETA COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Georgia

March 13, 1903

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A county is liable for injuries caused by a defect in a county bridge constructed, either by contractors or by the county authorities, since the passage of the act of 1888, although the injuries occurred more than seven years after the bridge was constructed.

Error from City Court of Newnan; A. D. Freeman, Judge.

Action by R. M. Hackney against Coweta county. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

W. A Post, W. G. Post, and W. C. Wright, for plaintiff in error.

W. L Stallings, H. A. Hall, and R. W. Freeman, for defendant in error.

SIMMONS C.J.

The key that unlocks the bolt of controversy in this case is the distinction between a dependent liability and an independent liability. Prior to the act of 1888, the liability of the county was in every case dependent on the liability of the contractor, and on the further fact of neglect on the part of the county authorities to take from the contractor the requisite bond and security. This view is clearly presented in the dissenting opinion found in Davis v. Horne, 64 Ga. 70, and is the basis of all the holdings which limit the county's liability to a period of seven years, unless it be shown that the contractor stipulated to make repairs for a longer term than seven years. The proposition that a dependent liability does not arise where the liability on which it depends has not arisen, and at a time when the latter could not possibly arise, has the force of a self-evident truth. It cannot be doubted that the intent of the Code was that the bond and security exacted of a contractor should cover the whole time during which it was his duty to keep in repair a bridge built by him under contract with the proper county authorities. This time could not be less than seven years, but might be more in case of express stipulation. In either event, the bridge becoming out of repair or being out of repair after the time expired would be no concern of the contractor as such, and could not possibly subject him to responsibility for the consequences. He would then be related to the bridge just as he would if it had been built by the county itself. The same would be true of his sureties, if there were any, and of the county, if no bond and security had been required.

The act of 1888 changed all this, so far as the county is...