Schneider v. City Council Of Augusta

• Decision Date: 14 August 1903
• Citation: 118 Ga. 610,45 S.E. 459
• Parties: SCHNEIDER. v. CITY COUNCIL OF AUGUSTA.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

45 S.E. 459

118 Ga. 610

SCHNEIDER.

v.CITY COUNCIL OF AUGUSTA.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Aug. 14, 1903.

NEGLIGENCE OP PROPERTY OWNER—LIABILITY TO CITY—JOINT TORT FEASORS —CONTRIBUTION.

1. The city of Augusta granted a building permit to a property owner. In erecting a building in accordance with this permit, the property owner placed in the sidewalk a grating, and by reason of defects in the grating, a pedestrian fell through it, and was injured. The pedestrian sued the city, and obtained a judgment; the city having previously vouched the property owner into the suit. On a suit by the city to recover from the property owner the amount of the judgment paid by it on account of the suit by the pedestrian, held, that the city and the property owner were not joint tort feasors in the wrong which caused the injuries to the pedestrian, and the city was not prevented from claiming contribution from the property owner.

v 1. See Indemnity, vol. 27, Cent. Dig. § 30.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Richmond County; E. L. Brinson, Judge.

Action by the city council of Augusta against J. R. Schneider. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

M. P. Carroll, for plaintiff in error.

Wm. H. Barrett, for defendant in error.

CANDLER, J. Mrs. Kate Sherwood sued the city council of Augusta for damages onaccount of personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by reason of a defective grating in a sidewalk. Judgment for $385 was obtained against the city, and was paid; the defendant having previously vouched into the suit John R. Schneider, the plaintiff in error in the present case, which was an action against Schneider for the amount of the judgment. The basis of the action against Schneider was the fact that he owned the abutting property at the place where the injuries to Mrs. Sherwood occurred, and placed in the sidewalk the grating through which she fell, and which gave rise to her suit against the city. In his plea Schneider admitted that judgment had been obtained against the city, as before stated; that he had been vouched into the suit; that the city had paid the judgment; and that Mrs. Sherwood's injuries had been occasioned by his negligence; but denied liability, on the ground that "the plaintiff was equally at fault with the defendant, " and averred that "the plaintiff permitted the defendant to place such grating on the sidewalk, as alleged, and saw them being placed there, and had full knowledge of their character in every particular, and failed to perform its duty by requiring defendant to change the same, if they were dangerous to pedestrians, but, on the contrary, allowed them to be constructed and remain in the condition they were in at the time of the injury to [Mrs. Sherwood], as set out in the petition in said case." The trial judge seems to have had before him for determination the single question whether, under the pleadings and the evidence, the city was a joint tort feasor with the defendant, Schneider, so as to prevent its claiming contribution from him for the judgment paid by it to Mrs. Sherwood. This question alone was argued in the brief of counsel for the city, and while the brief for the plaintiff in error touches upon other points, they are matters upon which he is concluded by his own plea and his admissions in the court below, and for that reason they will not be discussed...