Howington v. Madison County

• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
• Writing for the Court: COBB
• Citation: 55 S.E. 941,126 Ga. 699
• Parties: HOWINGTON . v. MADISON COUNTY.
• Decision Date: 12 November 1906

55 S.E. 941
126 Ga. 699

HOWINGTON .
v.
MADISON COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Nov. 12, 1906.

1. Bridge—What Constitutes.

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.]

2. Same—Defects—Action Against County Pleading.

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.

3. Same.

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 the

[55 S.E. 942]

level 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...