Wilkes County v. Tankersley

• Decision Date: 14 February 1923
• Docket Number: (No. 13521.)
• Citation: 116 S.E. 212,29 Ga.App. 624
• Parties: WILKES COUNTY . v. TANKERSLEY.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

29 Ga.App. 624

116 S.E. 212

WILKES COUNTY .

v.TANKERSLEY.

(No. 13521.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

Feb. 14, 1923.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Wilkes County; Jas. B. Park, Judge.

Action by J. P. Tankersley against Wilkes County. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

The charges complained of and excepted to are as follows:

"If you believe that Mr. McLendon, the county commissioner, had actual notice of the condition of the defect in the bridge, if there was any defect, and if you further believe that with this knowledge ordinary care on his part would have required that he put some sign or warning at this bridge tp prevent persons traveling the road from using it, then and in that event, if he failed to put such a warning or sign at the bridge, the county would be liable, provided the plaintiff could not have prevented the injury if his car was injured by the exercise of ordinary care and diligence. * * * Ordinary care and diligence is what the law calls a relative term. It is not an absolute term, and, if ordinary care and diligence would have required the county commissioners to have placed a sign upon that bridge or near that bridge after they had notice of the defect, why then ordinary care and diligence would have required this notice to have been placed there."

Clement E. Sutton, of Washington, Ga., for plaintiff in error.

Colley & Colley, of Washington, Ga., for defendant in error.

STEPHENS, J Judgment reversed.

JENKINS, P. J., and BELL, J., concur.