Nunez v. Emanuel County

• Decision Date: 12 April 1918
• Docket Number: 9273.
• Citation: 95 S.E. 718,22 Ga.App. 219
• Parties: NUNEZ v. EMANUEL COUNTY.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

95 S.E. 718

22 Ga.App. 219

NUNEZ v. EMANUEL COUNTY.

No. 9273.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, First Division

April 12, 1918

Syllabus by the Court.

In a suit against a county for damages alleged to have been caused by a defective bridge, the plaintiff cannot recover unless the proper county authorities had knowledge of the defective condition, or unless the defect had existed for such a length of time that knowledge thereof on the part of the county authorities would be presumed (Stamps v. Newton County, 8 Ga.App. 230, 68 S.E. 947 [3b]); and it is a jury question as to what length of time a defect in a bridge must exist before a county is charged with knowledge of negligence (City of Rome v. Brooks, 7 Ga.App. 244, 66 S.E. 627; Enright v. Atlanta, 78 Ga. 289).

The evidence as a whole being sufficient to warrant the jury in finding that the county authorities did not have notice of the defect in the bridge, and that the defective condition had not existed for such a length of time as to charge the authorities with such knowledge as would make them liable under the law, the trial court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial, which was based on the general grounds only.

Error from City Court of Swainsboro; Geo. Kirkland, Jr., Judge.

Action by J. M. Nunez against Emanuel County. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Williams & Bradley, of Swainsboro, for plaintiff in error.

T. N. Brown, of Swainsboro, for defendant in error.

WADE, C.J.

Judgment affirmed.

JENKINS and LUKE, JJ., concur.