Knowles v. Cent. Of Ga. Ry. Co

• Decision Date: 29 October 1903
• Citation: 45 S.E. 605,118 Ga. 795
• Parties: KNOWLES. v. CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

45 S.E. 605

118 Ga. 795

KNOWLES.

v.CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Oct. 29, 1903.

BRIDGE—NEGLIGENT USE—LIABILITY OF

OWNER.

1. The owner of a bridge is not liable in damages to one who is injured by falling therefrom in consequence of his having negligently put the bridge to a use for which it was not intended, it appearing that, but for such improper use of the bridge, tire plaintiff would not have been injured.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Bibb County, W. H. Felton, Jr., Judge.

Action by J. W. Knowles against the Central of Georgia Railway Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

John R. Cooper and M. W. Harris, for plaintiff in error.

Hall & Wimberly and J. E. Hall, for defendant in error.

CANDLER, J. Across a bridge for pedestrians in the city of Macon, owned and maintained by the Central of Georgia Railway Company, there ran a "large pipe, used for water or other purposes by the water company." This pipe was inclosed in a wooden box for the entire length of the bridge. The box was about two feet wide across the top, and about one foot distant from a railing which ran along the edge of the bridge. The plaintiff, while crossing the bridge, stopped and sat down on the box to rest. While thus resting himself, he leaned back, intending to recline against the railing of the bridge, "when he suddenly went backward and downward through an opening in the railing, " and sustained injuries described. It was alleged that the railroad company had negligently failed to keep the bridge in repair, and that the main horizontal plank of the railing had rotted and fallen away; and to this alleged negligence the plaintiff's injuries were ascribed. The petition, of which the foregoing is the substance, was dismissed on demurrer, and the plaintiff excepted.

We have no difficulty in sustaining the ruling of the trial judge. The box was not made to sit on, but to cover the water pipe; and, while the company owed a duty to the public to keep the bridge in reasonably safe condition for pedestrians, it was not bound to anticipate that weary citizens would use the box and the railing as a reclining chair. It may be conceded that the defendant negligently allowed the railing of the bridge to rot away, "but negligence relatively to one to whom no duty is due with respect to the matter in question does not give him a right of action." Ga. & Ala. R. Co. v. Cook, ' 114 Ga. 762, 40 S. E. 718, and citations. In ...