Owen v. Baggett

• Citation: 81 So. 888,77 Fla. 582
• Parties: OWEN v. BAGGETT et al., County Com'rs.
• Decision Date: 05 May 1919
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Florida

81 So. 888

77 Fla. 582

OWEN v. BAGGETT et al., County Com'rs.

Florida Supreme Court

May 5, 1919

Error to Circuit Court, Okaloosa County; A. G. Campbell, Judge.

Action by I. C. Owen against J. W. Baggett, Jr., and others, as members of the Board of County Commissioners of Okaloosa County, Fla. Demurrer to declarations sustained, and judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

In exercising the authority conferred upon them by the statutes with reference to public roads and bridges, the county commissioners are a state agency, having administrative discretion in the discharge of their official functions, and they are not personally liable to individuals in damages for injuries caused by their negligence in the performance of their statutory road and bridge duties, even when they have funds sufficient to keep the highways of the county in good repair, when they do not personally, directly and intentionally contribute to the injury complained of. Their authority as to roads and bridges is administrative, not merely ministerial, and is exercised for the public and not for any individual.

Unlike officers who serve individuals, such as those who ministerially record documents or serve writs for parties or police officers who commit trespass or assault under color of their authority to arrest or to keep the peace, the county commissioners, in exercising their statutory discretionary administrative authority, do not serve any particular individual, but only the state and the public generally.

A demurrer admits the facts well pleaded that are not inconsistent with law.

COUNSEL

D. Stuart Gillis, of De Funiak Springs, and John P Stokes, of Pensacola, for plaintiff in error.

Blount & Blount & Carter, of Pensacola, for defendants in error.

OPINION

WHITFIELD J.

An action was brought by Owen against the several members of the board of county commissioners of Okaloosa county, Fla., personally, to recover damages for the death of Owen's wife and child and the loss of property caused by the falling of a bridge over a river on the public highway in the county, on the ground that the defendants negligently failed in their duty to keep and maintain the bridge in good repair. A demurrer to the declaration was sustained, the plaintiff declined to amend, and took writ of error to a final judgment for defendants on the demurrer.

The different counts of the declaration allege that the defendants, county commissioners, 'were authorized, empowered, and in duty bound to keep and maintain in good repair the county bridges of said county, but that the defendants, ignoring and disregarding their duty in that behalf, negligently and carelessly suffered and permitted' the bridge 'to become and remain in an unsafe and dangerous condition, a menace to the safety of the lives and property of those traveling thereover, from and as a result of which plaintiff's wife, and his minor child, in the nighttime, while they were traveling thereover, were' lost as alleged, and plaintiff was injured, and his property was lost as stated. In other counts it is alleged that----

The negligence was in 'negligently permitting the abutments and mudsills of said bridge and the foundation thereof to be weak and insecure, having, by the action of the waters of said river, been undermined, and the braces, supports, and superstructure of the same had become old, weak, and out of place, all of which was, or should have been, known to defendants.' Other counts allege 'that for a long time prior to the happening of the injury hereinafter set forth, and after the bridge hereinafter mentioned had become out of repair and in an unsafe and dangerous condition, as hereinafter set forth, the defendants, as county commissioners, aforesaid, had in hand or under their control the funds necessary to place and keep and maintain said bridge in good repair, but that the defendants, ignoring and disregarding their duty in the premises, carelessly and negligently suffered and permitted the bridge to become and remain out of repair and in an unsafe and dangerous condition, a menace to the safety of the lives and property of those traveling thereover.'

Other counts allege:

'That for a long time prior to the happening of the injury hereinafter set forth, and after the bridge hereinafter mentioned had become out of repair and in an unsafe and dangerous condition, as hereinafter set forth, the defendants, as county commissioners aforesaid, had in hand or under their control the funds necessary to place, keep, and maintain said bridge in good repair, but that the defendants, ignoring and disregarding their duty in the premises, so carelessly and negligently suffered and permitted the bridge to become and remain out of good repair and in an unsafe and dangerous condition, a menace to the safety of the lives and property of those traveling thereover, in this: That the abutments and mudsills of said bridge and the foundations thereof were weak and insecure, having, by the action of the waters of said river, been undermined, and the braces, supports, and superstructure thereof had become old, weak, and out of place, all of which was, or should have been, known to defendants.'

Other counts allege that the bridge 'had become and was, with the full knowledge of defendants, out of repair and in a bad condition, unsafe and dangerous and a menace to the safety of the traveling public and the property being transported thereover; that the defendants, with the knowledge aforesaid, undertook to repair said bridge, which had become and was in the condition aforesaid, but, under the guise and pretense of repairing the same and placing it in good repair so that same would be safe and not dangerous and a menace to the safety of the traveling public and the property being transported thereover, negligently and carelessly failed to...