Harford County Com'rs v. Hamilton

• Decision Date: 20 June 1883
• Citation: 60 Md. 340
• Parties: THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF HARFORD COUNTY v. SARAH E. HAMILTON.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

60 Md. 340

THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF HARFORD COUNTY v. SARAH E. HAMILTON.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 20, 1883

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Harford County.

The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Exception.--The evidence being closed on both sides, the plaintiff offered the three following prayers:

1. If the jury find from the evidence, that the road mentioned in the declaration was a public road of Harford County, and was in bad condition, and not mended and repaired, and that in consequence of such condition of the road, the plaintiff's son, named in the declaration, was injured whilst travelling with proper care and caution on said road and that at the time of said injury, he was, and still is, a minor, under the age of twenty-one years, and at the time of the injury, lived with plaintiff, and was supported by her and has ever since so lived with and been supported by her and that his father had died before said injury was sustained, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover in this action.

2. That the care and caution required of one travelling on a public road, is simply such as persons of common prudence ordinarily exercise.

3. That if the jury find for the plaintiff, then they should find for her such an amount of damages as will fully compensate her for the loss, that from the evidence she shall appear to have sustained, by the loss of the services of her son, from the date of the injury to the period when the disability resulting from such injury would reasonably, according to the evidence, appear to cease, not exceeding the period of his minority; also for the care and labor of nursing him, made necessary by such injury which the jury shall find she sustained; also for the expenses and cost of medicines and medical attendance, to which the plaintiff was subjected on account of such injury to her son, and procured for him by plaintiff.

The defendants offered the following prayers:

1. That the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in this case, unless the jury find from the evidence that her son was injured by reason of negligence of the County Commissioners in the performance of their official duties, or by their neglect to perform them with reasonable care and diligence.

2. That even if the jury should find that plaintiff's son was injured by reason of negligence on the part of the County Commissioners, she is not entitled to recover in this action for loss of her son's services, unless they find that at the time he was hurt, he was in her employment, and then, only for the loss of his services, during the time he was employed by her.

3. That the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in this action for his pain and suffering, nor for her own anxiety or suffering on his account.

4. That if the jury find from the evidence, that the plaintiff is the mother of George H. Hamilton, who at the time of the alleged injury, was about seventeen years of age; that his father was then dead, and that he was then in the employment of his elder brother, James Hamilton, living and working as a farmhand, on the farm leased by his brother from Lindly M. Vail, where he continued to reside during the lease offered in evidence, that then the plaintiff is not entitled to recover for the alleged loss of her said son's services, by reason of his alleged inability to work.

5. That if the jury find the facts stated in the defendant's last prayer, then the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in this action for the board of her said son, or for her services in nursing and attending to him after he was hurt, or for the bills of the physicians who attended him.

6. That the duty imposed by law upon the County Commissioners, does not require them to make and keep the public roads in perfect condition and repair, but only that they shall use reasonable care and diligence in the exercise of the powers vested in them in regard to the public roads; and in determining whether in this case the Commissioners have been guilty of want of reasonable care and diligence, it is proper for the jury to take into consideration all the surrounding circumstances in evidence before them.

7. That the County Commissioners cannot be held responsible for the action of the elements; and if the jury find that by reason of a storm or freshet, or other natural cause, the public road where plaintiff's son was hurt, was rendered unsafe for travel, whereby he was injured, the County Commissioners are not liable for such injury, unless the jury find that they neglected to have it repaired in a reasonable time.

8. That if the jury find from the evidence that the public road where the plaintiff's son is alleged to have been injured, was then in such good repair, as to be reasonably safe for persons travelling thereon with ordinary care, then the plaintiff is not entitled to recover.

The court (Grason, C.J., and Watters, J.), granted the prayers of the plaintiff and the third and eighth of the defendants; but rejected the defendants' other prayers. The defendants excepted, and the verdict and judgment being against them, they appealed.

The cause was argued before Miller, Yellott, Robinson and Irving, JJ.

Henry W. Archer, for the appellants.

William Young, for the appellee.

Miller J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This suit was brought by the mother of a minor child whose father had died before the injury complained of. The declaration charges that the defendants were bound to keep the public roads of the county in repair, that one of said roads was negligently suffered by them to be out of repair, whereby George H. Hamilton, the minor son of the plaintiff, in travelling over the same with due care, was hurt and...