The Board of Commissioners of Fulton County v. Rickel
| Decision Date | 25 May 1886 |
| Docket Number | 12,375 |
| Parties | The Board of Commissioners of Fulton County v. Rickel |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Fulton Circuit Court.
Judgment reversed.
J Rowley and M. A. Baker, for appellant.
M. L Essick and O. F. Montgomery, for appellee.
The facts as they appear in the pleadings and evidence are substantially these: The appellee was seated in a carriage drawn by two horses driven by her father along one of the highways of Fulton county, on the evening of September 14th, 1884; the horses approached within a short distance of a bridge, when, becoming frightened at a plank standing upright in the bridge, they suddenly leaped backward and turned over the carriage, throwing the appellee out upon the ground and injuring her. The bridge was, and long had been, out of repair, so long that the county was chargeable with notice, and one, at least, of the county commissioners had actual knowledge, of the unsafe condition of the bridge.
Counties are not responsible for defective highways, and no action can be maintained against a county for negligence respecting highways. Counties are liable, however, for negligence respecting county bridges. Vaught v. Board, etc., 101 Ind. 123; Patton v. Board, etc., 96 Ind. 131; Board, etc., v. Bacon, 96 Ind. 31; Board, etc., v. Emmerson, 95 Ind. 579; Board, etc., v. Legg, 93 Ind. 523 (47 Am. R. 390); Board, etc., v. Brown, 89 Ind. 48; Board, etc., v. Deprez, 87 Ind. 509; Board, etc., v. Pritchett, 85 Ind. 68; Pritchett v. Board, etc., 62 Ind. 210; House v. Board, etc., 60 Ind. 580 (28 Am. R. 657).
But, while counties are liable for negligence in failing to keep bridges in a reasonably safe condition for travel, they are not liable unless the injury is the proximate result of their negligent breach of duty. They are, as we understand the effect of the decisions, liable only to those who suffer an injury because the bridge is unsafe for travel; but they are not liable where the injury is suffered by a person not actually using the bridge for that purpose. Counties are not bound to so maintain bridges as that horses will not take fright at them; the extent of their duty is to so maintain their bridges as that they may be safely used by persons travelling on the highway. If we are correct in this, then no action will lie where the injury is caused before the bridge is entered, by the horses of the traveller taking fright, for, where there is no duty, there can be no breach, if no breach, then no action. If the duty does not extend so far as to require a county to so keep their bridges as that horses shall not take fright, then an injury caused by horses becoming frightened at the condition of the bridge is not the proximate result of a breach of duty, and it is only for injuries proximately resulting from a breach of duty that a public corporation can be made liable.
It seems to us too plain to require argument, that if the duty of a county does not extend so far as to require it to keep its bridges in such a condition as that horses shall not take fright, it can not be liable where the injury occurs before the bridge is entered, and results from the horses becoming frightened at the condition of the bridge. It is perhaps true...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bd. of Com'rs of Fulton Co. v. Ricketts
... ... two horses driven by her father along one of the highways of Fulton county on the evening of September 14, 1884. The horses approached within a short ... was chargeable with notice,-and one, at least, of the county commissioners had actual knowledge of the unsafe condition of the bridge.Counties are ... Vaught v. Board, etc., 101 Ind. 123;Patton v. Board, etc., 96 Ind. 131;Board, etc., v ... ...
-
Bd. of Comm'rs v. Bailey
...laid upon township trustees and road supervisors. Section 1549, Elliott, Supp.; Abbett v. Board, 114 Ind. 61, 16 N. E. Rep. 127; Board v. Rickel, 106 Ind. 501, 7 N. E. Rep. 220. This feature of the law distinguishes the present case from Whitall v. Freeholders, supra, in which it was held t......
-
Board of Commissioners of Carroll County v. Bailey
...repair is laid upon township trustees and road supervisors. Section 1549, Elliott's Supp.; Abbett v. Board, etc., 114 Ind. 61; Board, etc., v. Rickel, 106 Ind. 501. feature of the law distinguishes the present case from Whitall v. Board, etc., supra, in which it was held that because the du......