Templeton v. Beard

• Decision Date: 24 April 1912
• Citation: 159 N.C. 63,74 S.E. 735
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: TEMPLETON. v. BEARD et al., County Com'rs.

74 S.E. 735

(159 N.C. 63)

TEMPLETON.

v.BEARD et al., County Com'rs.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 24, 1912.

1. Highways (§ 198*)—Bridges (§ 37*) — Torts—Defective Road or Bridge.

A county, in the absence of statute, is not liable for personal injuries resulting from a defective road or bridge.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Highways, Cent. Dig. §§ 504-507; Dec. Dig. § 198;* Bridges, Cent. Dig. §§ 103, 105; Dec. Dig. § 37.*]

2. Highways (§ 198*)—County Commissioners—Liability for Defective Road ob Bridge.

County commissioners exercising discretionary and quasi judicial powers for the public benefit, in the absence of statutory provisions, are not individually liable for personal injuries resulting from a defective road or bridge, where there is no charge that they acted or failed to act corruptly or of malice, however erroneous their judgment may be; nor is it material that they sometimes act ministerially.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Highways, Cent. Dig. §§ 504-507; Dec. Dig. § 198.*]

3. Bridges (§ 37*)—Justices of the Peace (§ 37*)—Jurisdiction.

An action against a county commissioner to recover the penalty of $200 provided by Revisal 1905, § 3590, for neglect of duty, is an action ex contractu, within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bridges, Cent. Dig. §§ 103-105; Dec. Dig. § 37;* Justices of the Peace, Cent. Dig. §§ 98-115; Dec. Dig. § 37.*]

Appeal from Superior Court, Iredell County; Ferguson, Judge.

Action by Vennie Templeton against P. B. Beard and others, commissioners of Rowan county. Demurrer to complaint sustained, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Z. V. Turlington, for appellant.

L. C. Caldwell, for appellees.

HOKE, J. The plaintiff instituted suit against P. B. Beard and four others, and for her cause of action alleged that during the period referred to defendants were the duly qualified and acting commissioners of Rowan county, N. C.; that on the ——day of May, 1909, the public road leading east from Mt. Ulla, in Rowan county, was, and had been for several months past, in a dangerous and unsafe condition at the point where it crosses Back creek, and was a menace to the public passing along over said road, because of the great need of a bridge across said creek, which fact was well known to defendants, above named, and was negligently, care-lessly, and wantonly, without due regard to the safety of the public, allowed by them to remain in said dangerous condition; that the defendants, above named, well knew the dangerous condition of the road and the need of a bridge at that place, and had assumed the responsibility therefor, and had agreed to build a bridge at that place, and had let the contract for the building of said bridge, but carelessly, negligently, and recklessly failed to have said bridge built for a long period of time after the contract for same had been let, to wit, for the period of about six months, well knowing that the safety of the public was imperiled by this long delay; that on or about the —— day of May, 1909, Miss Vennie Templeton, while attempting to cross the said creek at the point above named, drove her horse into the said ford, when her horse, on account of the dangerous condition of the aforesaid ford, lost his life, and the said plaintiff in this action was greatly damaged, to wit, in the sum of $300.

On these facts, alleged in the complaint and made the basis of plaintiff's demand, the county of Rowan is not liable on the principle declared and approved in the well-considered case of White v. Commissioners, 90 N. C. 437, 47 Am. Rep. 534, and many others of like purport. Nor will the action lie against the members of the board as individuals, because there is no averment that defendants acted or failed to act "corruptly or of malice." The case presented...