Windom v. Colquitt County, (No. 18130.)
| Decision Date | 14 July 1927 |
| Docket Number | (No. 18130.) |
| Citation | 37 Ga.App. 98,139 S.E. 158 |
| Parties | WINDOM. v. COLQUITT COUNTY. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
Error from Superior Court, Colquitt County; W. E. Thomas, Judge.
Suit by J. A. Windom against Colquitt County. The petition was dismissed on a general demurrer, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Brief Statement of Pleading by Editorial Staff.
The plaintiff in his petition alleged that he was driving his Buick automobile on a public road when he crashed into a pile of lumber negligently placed on said road at the approach to a bridge, and that the impact wrecked the front end of his car and sprang the frame and body. That the defendant county had torn out said bridge, and negli gently failed to maintain any warning sign or lights for guidance of traffic, and negligently failed to keep said bridge and the approach thereto in reasonable repair, so that persons who traveled thereon could use the same with convenience and safety. That plaintiff had no knowledge of the dangerous condition of the road, and that defendant knew of defect complained of at the time of the accident and long prior thereto, and that said defective and dangerous condition had existed for such length of time as in law to charge defendant with knowledge thereof.
In his amendment to the petition, plaintiff alleged that said pile of lumber which completely blocked the passage of said bridge was placed immediately next to said bridge opening across a stream upon a fill by said defendants approximately 5 feet high, which fill was a necessary part of the bridge, and that said lumber was placed on that part of the public road which constitutes the abutment and approach to said bridge, and which is essential to the existence and use of said bridge.
P. Q. Bryan, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for plaintiff in error.
BROYLES, C. J. [1, 2] This was a suit against a county for damage to an automobile, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the county in maintaining a defective bridge on a public highway. The facts of the case, as stated in the petition, failed to show any actionable negligence on the part of the county. Furthermore, the petition, properly construed (most strongly against the plaintiff), clearly showed that the plaintiff, by the exercise of ordinary care, could have avoided the injuries sued for. The court properly dismissed the petition on general demurrer.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial