Howington v. Madison County
| Decision Date | 12 November 1906 |
| Citation | 55 S.E. 941,126 Ga. 699 |
| Parties | HOWINGTON v. MADISON COUNTY. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
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 itself.
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.
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.
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 the bridge, is a portion of the bridge itself, and the obligation to keep the same in repair and the liability resulting from the failure to discharge the duty of repairing, applies to it to the same extent as it does to that portion of the structure ordinarily called the bridge. The term "bridge" includes all the appurtenances necessary to its proper use, and embraces its abutments and approaches. 4 Ency. Law (2d Ed.) 919. The approach to a bridge constitutes a part of it, and a duty to repair the bridge includes a repair of its approaches. 2 Shearm. & Redt on Neg. (5th Ed.) § 392. In Daniels v. Athens, 55 Ga. 609 (1), it was held that a continuous embankment necessary to make access to a bridge, so as to pass teams and wagons over it, was a part of the bridge. In the opinion, Judge Jackson said: "The bridge would be useless without access to it; and the good sense of the rule is supported by authority." See, also, 1 Words & Phrases, 869 et seq.; City Council of Augusta v. Hudson, 94 Ga. 135, 21 S.E. 289. In Sav., Fla. & Wes. Ry. Co. v Daniels, 90 Ga. 608, 17 S.E. 647, 20 L.R.A. 416, Mr. Justice Simmons quotes with approval from...
To continue reading
Request your trial