Vaught v. Board of Comm'rs of Johnson County
Decision Date | 20 March 1885 |
Docket Number | 12,182 |
Citation | 101 Ind. 123 |
Parties | Vaught v. The Board of Commissioners of Johnson County |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Johnson Circuit Court.
J. L White and W. J. Buckingham, for appellant.
T. W Woollen and D. D. Banta, for appellee.
OPINION
This action was brought by the appellant against the appellee to recover damages for injuries to his property, caused by a defective bridge. The issues were tried by the court, which, at the request of the parties, made a special finding of the facts in the case, and stated its conclusions of law thereon, as follows:
To which conclusions of law the appellant, at the proper time, duly excepted, and thereupon the court, upon said finding of facts and conclusions of law, rendered a judgment against the appellant, from which he appeals to this court.
The only question submitted for our consideration is, Did the court err in its conclusions of law?
The statute provides that "The board of commissioners of such county shall cause all bridges therein to be kept in repair," etc. R. S. 1881, section 2892. This provision of the statute has been in force since August 17th, 1855. See Acts 1855, p. 18, section 11. Under this statute, it is the imperative duty of the board of commissioners of a county in this State to cause all bridges over which it has control to be kept in repair, and if it negligently suffers such a bridge to remain out of repair, whereby a person, in the ordinary use of the same, is injured in person or property without any fault of his own, he has an action against such board for damages resulting from the injury, although such action is not authorized expressly by statute. House v. Board, etc., 60 Ind. 580 (28 Am. R. 657); Pritchett v. Board, etc., 62 Ind. 210; Board, etc., v. Pritchett, 85 Ind. 68; Board, etc., v. Deprez, 87 Ind. 509; Board, etc., v. Brown, 89 Ind. 48; Board, etc., v. Legg, 93 Ind. 523; Board, etc., v. Emmerson, 95 Ind. 579; Board, etc., v. Bacon, 96...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commissioners of Shelby Cnty. v. Blair
...v. Board, 3 Ind. App. 536, 30 N. E. 147;House v. Board, 60 Ind. 580;Pritchett v. Board, 62 Ind. 210;Patton v. Board, 96 Ind. 131;Vaught v. Board, 101 Ind. 123. And in some cases the construction placed upon section 2892, supra, is that the county must use reasonable care to keep in repair a......
-
The Board of Commissioners of Shelby County v. Blair
...30 N.E. 147; House v. Board, etc., 60 Ind. 580; Pritchett v. Board, etc., 62 Ind. 210; Patton v. Board, etc., 96 Ind. 131; Vaught v. Board, etc., 101 Ind. 123. And, some cases, the construction placed upon section 2892, supra, is that the county must use reasonable care to keep in repair al......
-
Bd. of Com'rs of Boone Cnty. v. Mutchler
...in a safe condition, regardless of the size of the bridge or the character of the streams or ditches which they may span. Vaught v. Board, etc., 101 Ind. 123;Board, etc., v. Bacon, 96 Ind. 31;Board, etc., v. Emerson, 95 Ind. 579;Board, etc., v. Brown, 89 Ind. 48.” The accident in the case a......
-
Bd. of Com'rs of Jackson Cnty. v. Nichols
...from its obligation to maintain it in a condition of safety for public travel. Board v. Sisson, 2 Ind. App. 311, 28 N. E. 374;Vaught v. Board, 101 Ind. 123; Board v. Arnett, 116 Ind. 438, 19 N. E. 299;Board of Com'rs v. Washington Tp., 121 Ind. 379, 23 N. E. 257. The fourth specification so......