Meriwether County v. Gilbert

• Citation: 156 S.E. 472,42 Ga.App. 500
• Decision Date: 16 January 1931
• Docket Number: No. 20497.,20497.
• Parties: MERIWETHER COUNTY. v. GILBERT.
• Court: United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)

42 Ga.App. 500

156 S.E. 472

MERIWETHER COUNTY.

v.GILBERT.

No. 20497.

Court of Appeals of Georgia,

Division No. 2.

Jan. 16, 1931.

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Error from City Court of Greenville; H. H. Revill, Judge.

Suit by J. T. Gilbert against Meriwether County. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

N. F. Culpepper, of Greenville, for plaintiff in error.

Terrell & Terrell, of La Grange, and R. A. McGraw, of Greenville, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

JENKINS, P. J.

This was a suit against a county for damages on account of loss of services of the plaintiff's five year old child, who was killed when an automobile driven by the plaintiff, and occupied by the child and other members of his family, was precipitated through an open span of a public bridge forming part of a public highway of the defendant county. It was alleged that the bridge span had been washed away by heavy rains, occurring on March 7 or 8, previous to the accident on April 14; that the county authorities know of the condition of the bridge, or by the exercise of proper care should have known of it; that the plaintiff did not know of the condition of the bridge until he had driven onto it and had reached a point about fifty feet from the washout; that the bridge was wet and slippery, and he was driving a heavy car; and that on discovering the washout he endeavored to stop the car, but was unable to do so. The petition showed that the bridge was approached by a public roadway, in which there was a sharp curve about fifty yards from the bridge, which led up an incline to the bridge proper. The court overruled a general demurrer to the petition, and the defendant excepts. Held:

1. It is the duty of the county authorities to construct and maintain bridges across streams in a workmanlike and proper manner, so that any person may use them in safety, in ordinary travel (Civil Code of 1910, § 748; Tattnall County v. Newton, 112 Ga. 779, 38 S. E. 47; Stamps v. Newton County, 8 Ga. App. 230 (5) 68 S. E. 947), and "a traveler on the public highway, exercising due care, although he knows there is some danger in driving over a defective bridge, may recover for injuries thus sustained, unless the danger is obviously of such a character that driving over the bridge, in and of itself, amounts to a want of ordinary-care." Elbert County v. Threlkeld, 145 Ga. 133 (1), 88 S. E. 683.

2. Questions as to diligence and negligence, including contributory negligence, and what negligence constitutes the proximate cause of the injury complained of, are questions peculiarly for the jury, such as this court will decline to solve on demurrer, except where such questions appear palpably clear, plain, and indisputable. Southern Railway Co. v. Slaton, 41 Ga. App. 759 (3), 154 S. E. 718, and cases c...