Schooler v. Arrington

• Decision Date: 30 May 1904
• Citation: 106 Mo. App. 607,81 S.W. 468
• Parties: SCHOOLER v. ARRINGTON.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

81 S.W. 468

106 Mo. App. 607

SCHOOLER v. ARRINGTON.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 30, 1904.

OFFICERS — TORTS — OFFICIAL ACTION — DISCRETION — MALICE.

1. A complaint alleging that defendant, as county bridge commissioner, negligently and carelessly performed his duties, allowing improper material to be used in a bridge, whereby the plaintiff with his steam threshing outfit was precipitated into the stream by the breaking of the bridge, did not state a cause of action, as a public officer charged with discretionary duties is not liable for an erroneous performance, unless guilty of willful wrong, malice, or corruption.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Chariton County; Jno. P. Butler, Judge.

Action by T. P. Schooler against Albert F. Arrington. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

T. O. Schooler, pro se. Crawley & West, for respondent.

ELLISON, J.

Plaintiff instituted this action by petition, in which he charges that defendant was bridge commissioner of Chariton county, and as such had supervision and control of the construction of a bridge across one of the streams in that county, which the county court had let to a bridge builder. It is charged that the defendant so negligently and carelessly performed his duties of supervision and inspection that he allowed improper material used therein, and the bridge to be built in such way as to be weak and unsafe for travel by the public; that, notwithstanding such negligence, defendant reported to the county court that the bridge had been properly built as required by the contract. It is then alleged that plaintiff, in reliance upon the safety and security of the bridge, went onto it with a steam threshing outfit for threshing grain, when it broke down, precipitating the machine to the bottom of the stream, whereby it was greatly damaged, etc. A different count stated personal injuries received by plaintiff. The trial court held that the petition did not state a cause of action, and sustained a demurrer thereto on that ground.

1. The petition did not charge that defendant's action was instigated by willfulness, malice, or corruption. It is well settled in this state that, when a public officer is charged with duties which call for an exercise of his judgment and discretion, he is not liable for an erroneous performance, unless he has been guilty of willful wrong, malice, or corruption. Reed v. Conway, 20 Mo. 23; Pike v. Megoun, 44 Mo. 491; Edwards v. Ferguson, 73 Mo. 686;...