Heigel v. Wichita County

• Decision Date: 22 April 1892
• Citation: 19 S.W. 562
• Parties: HEIGEL v. WICHITA COUNTY.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

19 S.W. 562

HEIGEL v. WICHITA COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Texas.

April 22, 1892.

Appeal from district court, Wichita county; P. M. STINE, Judge.

Action by Leon Heigel against Wichita county for personal injuries. The suit was dismissed on demurrer, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Cobb & Boyd, for appellant. Ashbey S. James, for appellee.

GAINES, J.

This suit was brought by appellant to recover of Wichita county damages for personal injuries caused by a defective bridge. A demurrer was sustained to the petition, and, the plaintiff having declined to amend, the suit was dismissed. The question presented seems not to have been authoritatively decided in this court, though in City of Galveston v. Posnainsky, 62 Tex. 118, it is held that a city is liable under similar circumstances. But the opinion in that case recognizes the doctrine that a different rule applies as to counties. That cities may be made to respond in damages for injuries resulting from a failure to discharge their corporate duties is affirmed by the courts of this country with practical unanimity. At the same time it is very generally held that counties are not liable for similar injuries, unless such liability be created by statute, either by express words or by necessary implication. The latter doctrine has been applied in the following cases: Mower v. Leicester, 9 Mass. 247; Askew v. Hale Co., 54 Ala. 639; Haygood v. Justices, 20 Ga. 845; White v. Bond Co., 58 Ill. 297; White v. Commissioners, 90 N. C. 437; Brabham v. Board, 54 Miss. 363; Reardon v. St. Louis Co., 36 Mo. 555; Commissioners v. Riggs, 24 Kan. 255; Woods v. Colfax Co., 10 Neb. 552, 7 N. W. Rep. 269; Livermore v. Board, 29 N. J. Law, 245; Wood v. Tipton Co., 7 Baxt. 112; Barnett v. Contra Costa Co., 67 Cal. 77, 7 Pac. Rep. 177; Bartlett v. Crozier, 17 Johns. 439; Symonds v. Board, 71 Ill. 355; Mitchell v. Rockland, 52 Me. 118; Eastman v. Meredith, 36 N. H. 284; Detroit v. Blackeby, 21 Mich. 84; Granger v. Pulaski Co., 26 Ark. 37. Many of these cases approve former rulings in the same court, and show a well-established rule of decision in the courts in which they were delivered. The contrary doctrine has been held in the courts indicated by the following cases: Board v. Pritchett, 85 Ind. 68; Huff v. Poweshiek Co., 60 Iowa, 529, 15 N. W. Rep. 418; Eyler v. Commissioners, 49 Md. 257; Rigony v. Schuylkill Co., 103 Pa. St. 382. In Iowa counties are held liable for injuries incurred by defects in bridges, but in Kincaid v. Hardin Co., (Iowa,) 5 N. W. Rep. 589, it was decided by the supreme court of that state that no recovery could be had against a county for injuries received by reason of the negligent construction of a courthouse. In that case, the court say: "But, as the line of decisions in this state as to the liability for defective bridges stands almost, if not quite, alone, as we have seen, we have no disposition to carry the doctrine further than is necessary to sustain the decisions of the court, which have stood so long that it may truthfully be said that they have the implied sanction of the lawmaking power and the people of the state." See, also, 2 Dill. Mun. Corp. § 963; 4 Amer. & Eng. Enc. Law, 364. It is apparent from the above citations that there is an overwhelming weight of authority in favor of the proposition that counties as a rule are not liable at common law for injuries resulting from the neglect of their officers or agents. The grounds upon which the decisions are placed are not uniform. Counties...