Patton v. Board of Comm'rs of Montgomery County
| Decision Date | 04 June 1884 |
| Docket Number | 11,372 |
| Parties | Patton et al. v. Board of Commissioners of Montgomery County |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Montgomery Circuit Court.
Judgment reversed with instructions to sustain appellants' motion for a new trial.
G. W Paul, M. D. White and J. E. Humphries, for appellants.
J. M Thompson, W. B. Herod and W. H. Thompson, for appellee.
The appellants' complaint is for an injury alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the county authorities in suffering a bridge of the county to become unsafe. The injury occurred while the act of 1881 was in force, and it is contended by the appellant, that under that act the superintendent of roads, and not the county commissioners, is the party against whom the action should be brought.
It was said, in State v. Clark, 4 Ind. 315: "In legal contemplation, the board of commissioners is the county." In another case it was said: Board, etc., v. Saunders, 17 Ind. 437; Nixon v. State, ex rel., ante, p. 111. Bridges belong to the county, not to the superintendent, supervisor or any other ministerial officer, and with the right of ownership goes the burden of responsibility. The county is responsible for the care and management of the public property entrusted to its charge, and where that property is a bridge, it is bound to keep it in reasonably safe condition for travel. The right of action is, therefore, against the county, and actions to recover damages from the county must be brought against the board of commissioners, and not against subordinate ministerial officers.
The principle upon which counties and other public corporations are held responsible for injuries occurring from the negligence of officers respecting bridges, is, that as the governing officers are provided with means for making bridges safe, and are required to keep them in repair, there rests upon the corporations a duty to employ the means placed at their command for the purpose contemplated by the law. Having the means to make bridges safe, they are bound to use reasonable diligence to effect that object; if they fail in this they are guilty of a breach of duty, and, as a general rule, a breach of duty on the part of the corporation constitutes actionable negligence. Our cases apply this principle to the duty of counties in maintaining public bridges. Board, etc., v. Emmerson, 95 Ind. 579; Board, etc., v. Legg, 93 Ind. 523; Board, etc., v. Brown, 89 Ind. 48; Board, etc., v. Deprez, 87 Ind. 509. The duty rests upon the corporation, and, although the specific act of negligence may be committed by one of its officers, the right of action is against the public corporation.
It is a general rule that the negligence of an agent or officer of a town or city is the negligence of the corporation. This rule is so well settled that it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commissioners of Shelby Cnty. v. Blair
...a liability exists. Park v. Board, 3 Ind. App. 536, 30 N. E. 147;House v. Board, 60 Ind. 580;Pritchett v. Board, 62 Ind. 210;Patton v. Board, 96 Ind. 131;Vaught v. Board, 101 Ind. 123. And in some cases the construction placed upon section 2892, supra, is that the county must use reasonable......
-
Platter v. The Board of Commissioners of Elkhart County
...often received the approval of the court. Hoffman v. Board, etc., 96 Ind. 84, vide auth. p. 86; Nixon v. State, ex rel., supra; Patton v. Board, etc., 96 Ind. 131. McCabe v. Board, etc., 46 Ind. 380, it was said: "We think it clear that the board of commissioners of a county is to be viewed......
-
McDermott v. Bd. of Com'rs of Delaware Cnty.
...county. 11 Cyc. p. 388, n. 7; Platter v. Board of Elkhart Co., 103 Ind. 360, 2 N. E. 544;State v. Clark, 4 Ind. 315;Patton et al. v. Board of Com. Montgomery Co., 96 Ind. 131;Hoffman v. Board of Com. Lake Co., 96 Ind. 84. The board is an entity for the performance of the business that falls......
-
The Board of Commissioners of Shelby County v. Blair
...Park v. Board, etc., 3 Ind.App. 536, 30 N.E. 147; House v. Board, etc., 60 Ind. 580; Pritchett v. Board, etc., 62 Ind. 210; Patton v. Board, etc., 96 Ind. 131; Vaught v. Board, etc., 101 Ind. And, in some cases, the construction placed upon section 2892, supra, is that the county must use r......