Howington v. Madison County
| Citation | 55 S.E. 941,126 Ga. 699 |
| Parties | HOWINGTON . v. MADISON COUNTY. |
| Decision Date | 12 November 1906 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
The term "bridge" includes all the appurtenances necessary to its proper use, and embraces its abutments and approaches. That which is necessary as an approach, to connect the bridge with the highway, is an essential part of the bridge itselt.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 8, Bridges, §§ 2, 3.]
An allegation in a petition brought against a county, to recover for damage caused by a defect in a bridge, that the road commissioners and overseers of roads in the district in which the bridge was located had notice of the defect, is an averment of notice to the county, which is good as against a general demurrer.
It was error to sustain a general demurrer to the petition.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Madison County; H. M. Holden, Judge.
Action by A. M. Howington against'Madison county. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
Mrs. Howington brought her action against the county of Madison, laying damages in the sum of $10,000. The petition alleged that on September 16, 1904, the minor son of plaintiff, six years of age, was killed by the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, such negligence consisting of a defect in a public bridge erected by the defendant since December 29, 1888; the bridge constituting a part of one of the established public roads of the county. The deceased and his father were traveling the road in a wagon, with an ordinary load of hay, and came to a short bridge which was erected over a gully and low place in the road. The defendant had allowed the gully under the bridge to fill up and pond the water and mud Under the bridge and immediately beyond it, thus causing a sudden decline of at least 8 or 10 inches from the bridge to the dirt in the road adjacent thereto. While passing over the bridge, without fault on the part of either, the wagon suddenly dropped 8 or 10 inches in the bog which the defendant had negligently and carelessly left along side of the bridge, and threw the deceased and his father from the wagon to the ground; the skull of the deceased being crushed by the fall and death ensuing within six hours thereafter. It is alleged that the death of the plaintiff's son was caused by the negligence of the defendant in allowing "the immediate drop off of 8 or 10 inches from the side of said bridge down into a boggy hole, so that the said bridge was 8 or 10 higher than thelevel or grade of the road Immediately beyond said bridge." It was also alleged, that the defendant failed to keep the bridge and the approach thereto in repair, so that persons who traveled carrying ordinary loads could use the same with ease and safety, and that the attention of the defendant was called to the defect In the bridge, through the commissioners and overseers in the district In which the bridge was located. It was alleged that the deceased left no wife or child, and that the plaintiff was dependent upon him, and he contributed to her support. To this petition the defendant interposed a general demurrer, which, after argument, the ceurt sustained. The plaintiff excepted.
W. W. Stark, for plaintiff In error.
David W. Meadow, John E. Gordon, J. F. L. Bond, and Berry L. Moseley, for defendant in error.
COBB, P. J. (after stating the foregoing facts). A county Is liable for injuries caused by defects in a county bridge constructed since the passage of the act of 1888. Hackney v. Coweta County, 117 Ga. 327, 43 S. E. 725. The petition alleges that the bridge in question was erected by the county since 1888, and that it Is a public bridge of the county. "A bridge which constitutes a portion of a public road is necessarily a public bridge." County of Tattnall v. Newton, 112 Ga. 780, 38 S. E. 47. It Is contended, though, that the injury did not result from a defect In the bridge, but from a defect in a public road leading to the bridge, and that there is no liability upon a county resulting from defects in a public road. Unless the defect complained of is a part of the bridge, the county is not liable, and the petition was properly dismissed. While the county is not liable for a defect in a public road, that part of a public road which constitutes the abutment to the bridge, and which is absolutely essential to the existence and use of...
To continue reading
Request your trial