Wittwer v. Richardson County
| Decision Date | 24 July 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 32776,32776 |
| Citation | 43 N.W.2d 505,153 Neb. 200 |
| Parties | WITTWER v. RICHARDSON COUNTY. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. In an action to recover damages from a county under sections 30-809 and 30-810, R.R.S.1943, and section 39-834, R.S.1943, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish negligence on the part of the county.
2. A county is not an insurer of the safety of the bridges it constructs and maintains upon highways for the use of the public.
3. In an action to recover damages from a county on account of injury or death caused by a defective bridge on a public highway the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defect was known or that it existed for such a length of time that with reasonable diligence it could or should have been discovered by the county.
4. A county is not liable for negligence on account of latent defects in a bridge on a public highway but only for such as are patent and may be ascertained by reasonable inspection.
5. A county is not liable for negligence for injury or death on account of defects caused by climatic conditions beyond its control.
Jean B. Cain, Bayard T. Clark, F. A. Hebenstreit, Falls City, for appellant.
Paul P. Chaney, John Wiltse, Falls City, for appellee.
Heard before SIMMONS, C. J., and CARTER, MESSMORE, YEAGER, CHAPPELL, WENKE, and BOSLAUGH, JJ.
This is an action by Grace Wittwer, administratrix of the estate of James Wittwer, deceased, plaintiff and appellee, against the County of Richardson, Nebraska, defendant and appellant, to recover damages on account of the death of James Wittwer, which the plaintiff says was caused by the negligence of the defendant. The case was tried to a jury and a verdict was returned in favor of plaintiff for $19,570.72. Judgment was entered on the verdict. A motion for new trial was duly filed and overruled. From the judgment and the order overruling the motion for new trial the defendant has appealed.
Numerous alleged errors were assigned as grounds for reversal. Such of them as require consideration in a proper determination of the case will be discussed at the proper point herein.
James Wittwer of the age of 49 years came to his death on March 21, 1949, at a point on a public county highway in Richardson County, Nebraska, about one and one-half miles west of Falls City. He came to his death as the direct result of a fire in a Ford automobile truck which he had operated west to the point of the incidents involved on the highway.
At the place where death occurred there was a bridge across the highway and over a regular drainway or creek. Its width was about 19 feet and its span about 13 feet. Authentically it appears that the bridge was constructed not later than 1922. At the east side of the creek was a reinforced concrete abutment extending north and south. The thickness of the abutment does not appear in the evidence. Its height including the base was about 16 feet. The base or footing was 30 inches wide by two feet in depth. Attached to each end of the abutment and extending backward from the channel of the creek and obliquely outward for a distance of about 10 to 11 feet there was a reinforced concrete wing. The thickness was 11 inches at the top and greater at the bottom. Whether or not the wings rested on a base similar to that supporting the abutment is not made clear. There was an abutment with wings on the west side the same as on the east. The wings were doubtless placed there for the purpose of aiding to support the abutments and to prevent earth from escaping from behind the abutments. The span of the bridge was attached to and rested on top of the abuttments in a manner not necessary to be described here.
The lowest point of the channel of the stream was about three feet below the bottom or base of the abutments but this low point did not extend outward to the base of the abutments. There had been no washing out under the abutments. There is no evidence of a lack of firmness at the base of the abutments.
In the early morning while it was yet dark the deceased driving a Ford automobile truck at about the speed of 30 or 35 miles an hour approached the bridge and from behind the truck was seen to apparently drop. Almost immediately thereafter it was found that the west abutment had fallen forward and downward and that the span of the bridge had fallen upon it and the truck spanned the gap which had been covered by the span of the bridge. The front end extended west beyond where the west abutment had been and the rear to the east beyond the location of the east abutment. The deceased and another man were pinned in the truck in such manner that they could not at the time be extricated. A fire started and the two men died in consequence thereof before they could be extricated.
Whether or not the bridge collapsed before or after the deceased arrived at this point is, on the record, only a matter of surmise.
The plaintiff, the widow of the deceased and administratrix of his estate, brings the action under authority of sections 30-809 and 30-810, R.R.S.1943, and she charges the defendant county with liability under section 39-834, R.S.1943. No question is raised as to her right to maintain the action or as to her right to recover if negligence of the county was shown to be the proximate cause of the death of her husband. It follows therefore that the provisions of statute referred to require no discussion.
The grounds of action are:
'That the defendant disregarding its duties to said James Wittwer and the public generally carelessly and negligently permitted said bridge to become out of repair and dangerous for public travel in the following particulars, to wit:----
'(a) In failing to maintain said bridge so that it was fit for public traffic across the same.
'(b) In permitting said bridge to become out of repair.
'(c) In that the defendant, its officers and agents, knew or should have known that said bridge was not in repair and taken the necessary steps to make said bridge safe for public travel across the same.
'(d) In maintaining said bridge so that the West perpendicular wall became out of place and fell inward or toward the east so that there was no support for the top or roadway surface of said bridge.'
As a ground for reversal the defendant says that the court erred in not sustaining defendant's motion for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McKinney v. Cass County
...cause that proximately contributed to it.' See, also, Dickenson v. County of Cheyenne, 146 Neb. 36, 18 N.W.2d 559; Wittwer v. County of Richardson, 153 Neb. 200, 43 N.W.2d 505; Brooks v. Thayer County, 126 Neb. 610, 254 N.W. The record shows that the traveled surface of both intersecting co......
-
Shields v. Buffalo County, 33704
...and bridges or the safety of the highways and bridges maintained by it for the use of the public.' See, also, Wittwer v. County of Richardson, 153 Neb. 200, 43 N.W.2d 505. 'In an action to recover damages from a county by virtue of the statute the burden is on the plaintiff to establish neg......
-
Olson v. Wayne County
...uses its roads and bridges or the safety of the highways and bridges maintained by it for the use of the public. Wittwer v. County of Richardson, 153 Neb. 200, 43 N.W.2d 505; Dickenson v. County of Cheyenne, supra; Brooks v. Thayer County, 126 Neb. 610, 254 N.W. 413; Frickel v. Lancaster Co......
-
Christensen v. City of Tekamah, 41486
...to the plaintiff or that it was a cause that proximately contributed to it. See, Olson v. County of Wayne, supra; Wittwer v. County of Richardson, 153 Neb. 200, 43 N.W.2d 505; Bowerman v. Greenberg, 142 Neb. 721, 7 N.W.2d 711. The only evidence in the record which affords any basis for the ......