Robinson v. Minnehaha County, 8036
Decision Date | 25 January 1938 |
Docket Number | 8036 |
Citation | 65 S.D. 628,277 N.W. 324 |
Parties | WILL G. ROBINSON, Appellant, v. MINNEHAHA COUNTY, Respondent. |
Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
MINNEHAHA COUNTY, Respondent. South Dakota Supreme Court Appeal from Circuit Court, Minnehaha County, SD Hon. Lucius J. Wall, Judge. #8036—Affirmed. Will G. Robinson, Pierre, SD Harry A. Robinson, Yankton, SD Attorneys for Appellant. E. D. Barron, State’s Atty., Sioux Falls, SD CJ Delbridge, Louis Crill, John McQuillen, Sioux Falls, SD Attorneys for Respondent. Opinion filed Jan 25, 1938
On the night of August 31, 1933, a large tree located within the confines of a state trunk highway in Minnehaha County fell across the highway and injured the wife of plaintiff. The tree had become weakened by decay, and was precipitated onto the passageway by a high wind. As a result of the injuries suffered by his wife, appellant was required to expend, or obligate himself to expend, a considerable sum of money. After his claim against Minnehaha county had been rejected, this action was brought by appellant for the purpose of establishing the liability of the county for such expenditures. A verdict was directed by the learned trial court for the county, at the close of the testimony. The appeal is from the judgment and from an order overruling the motion for a new trial.
Assuming that the evidence discloses that Minnehaha County had actual notice of the defective condition of the tree and had ample opportunity to remove it from the highway, if it was obligated so to do, is the county liable for the damages appellant suffered as a result of the injury? That there is no common-law liability upon the part of the county for such damages has been settled by former adjudications of this court. Bailey v. Lawrence County, 49 AmStRep 881; Brown v. Roberts County, 206 N.W. 479; Hanigan v. Minnehaha county et al., 201 N.W. 522; Cain v. Meade County, 735.
Notwithstanding the fact that the statutory duty to maintain and repair the highway in question rested with the State Highway Commission by the terms of chapter 285 of the Laws of 1923, it is asserted by appellant that county liability arises out of the provisions of sections 8589 and 8590 of the Revised Code of 1919, chapter 167 of the Session Laws of 1931, reading as follows:
Authority has taken the position that such statutes deal only with the surface of the passageway, and, being in derogation of the common law, may not be extended by judicial construction to impose liability for falling trees or branches. Miller v. City of Detroit, 156 Mich. 630, 132 AmStRep 537, 16 Ann. Cas. 832. The views we hold render it unnecessary for us to labor the point. For like reasons we do not consider whether a cause of action accrues to a husband for expenditures growing out of an injury to his wife under the language of these provisions, reading as follows: “And any person who shall sustain injury to person or property.”
An understanding of legislative intent will be gained through consideration of the original form of these statutes and by an explanation of the state of our highway law at the time of their enactment. Under the statutes as they then existed, the duty to maintain and repair the highways rested upon cities, towns, and organized civil townships, respectively, as to all highways located within their confines, and upon the counties as to all highways located in territories not fully organized into civil townships. In the light of this segregation of duty, the Legislature adopted chapter 210 of the Session Laws of 1915 (the source of sections 8589 and 8590, Revised Code of 1919), reading as follows:
From these provisions there emerges an unmistakable legislative intent to definitely fix the respective duties of the several subdivisions enumerated with reference to public safety and travel on the highways, and to provide for the recovery of damages from a particular subdivision occasioning injury through failure to perform the statutory duty assigned to it. Manifestly, liability was only intended to attach to a subdivision because of its negligence.
That such was the legislative intent portrayed by these provisions was recognized by this court in the case of Hanigan v. Minnehaha County, supra. In that case damages were sought against a township, under sections 85'89 and 8590 of the Revised Code of 1919, for injuries sustained on the county highway system within the township at a time after the Legislature, by chapter 333 of the Laws of 1919, had relieved the townships of all responsibility for the maintenance and repair of those particular highways. In that case it was said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial