Meriwether County v. Gilbert

• Decision Date: 16 January 1931
• Docket Number: 20497.
• Citation: 156 S.E. 472,42 Ga.App. 500
• Parties: MERIWETHER COUNTY v. GILBERT.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

156 S.E. 472

42 Ga.App. 500

MERIWETHER COUNTY v. GILBERT.

No. 20497.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Second Division

January 16, 1931

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

County must construct and maintain bridge in workmanlike manner to enable safe use (Civ. Code 1910, § 748).

Traveler exercising due care, though knowing there is some danger in crossing defective bridge, may recover for injuries, unless danger was obvious (Civ. Code 1910, § 748).

Questions of diligence, negligence, contributory negligence, and proximate cause are for jury, not for appellate court, unless appearing indisputable.

Absence of warning signs on defective bridge may be considered in determining whether person approaching bridge exercised care though county need not place warning signs.

Petition for death of child killed when automobile fell through open span of public bridge, alleging county negligently failed to keep bridge safe, stated case.

The petition alleged that county was negligent in failing to keep road and public bridge in safe condition for ordinary travel in allowing washout in bridge to remain for over a month; in not placing guard rails or barriers around hole in bridge and in failing to give warning signs of dangerous condition of bridge.

Petition against county for death of child when automobile fell through public bridge did not show death was caused by driver's driving onto bridge in violation of law (Acts 1927, p. 236, § 12(e, i).

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.

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...