Youmans v. Thornton

• Decision Date: 24 November 1917
• Citation: 168 P. 1141,31 Idaho 10
• Parties: MRS. BESSIE YOUMANS, Appellant, v. H. H. THORNTON et al., Respondents
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

168 P. 1141

31 Idaho 10

MRS. BESSIE YOUMANS, Appellant, v. H. H. THORNTON et al., Respondents

Supreme Court of Idaho

November 24, 1917

COUNTY OFFICERS-OFFICIAL DUTY-PERFORMANCE OF-TO WHOM LIABLE.

1. The duties of county commissioners and road overseers are prescribed by statute, and are governmental functions.

2. These officers are responsible to the state and county for the performance of their official duties, but beyond this their liability cannot be extended.

3. County commissioners and road overseers are not individually liable in damages for injuries sustained by reason of defective highways or bridges.

[As to liability of ministerial officers to private persons for misperformance and nonperformance of official duties, see note in 95 Am.St. 72]

APPEAL from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, for Cassia County. Hon. Wm. A. Babcock, Judge.

Action for damages alleged to have been caused by defective bridge Judgment for defendant affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Costs awarded to respondents.

T Bailey Lee and W. E. Abraham, for Appellant.

The supreme court of Montana in the case of Smith v Zimmer, 45 Mont. 282, 125 P. 420, construing secs. 1356 and 1359, Rev. Codes of Montana, almost identical with the Idaho statutes, held "that county commissioners and road supervisors are personally responsible to an individual for injuries sustained by reason of their negligent failure to see that a highway is put in proper repair, or that warning is given of the defect." (See, also, Piercy v Averill, 37 Hun (N. Y.), 360; Garrett County Commrs. v. Blackburn, 105 Md. 226, 66 A. 31.)

"As the county commissioners are given control of the public roads, are charged with the duty of keeping them in good repair, and are supplied with the means of discharging their duty and meeting their liability, they are liable for injuries caused by any defect in a public road due to their negligence." (Richardson v. Commissioners of Kent County, 120 Md. 153, 87 A. 747; Tholkes v. Decock, 125 Minn. 507, 147 N.W. 648, 52 L. R. A., N. S., 142.)

S. T. Lowe, for Respondents.

"A county is a political subdivision of the state and may be said to act as a corporation with specific powers, through its officers as agents, whose duties are not only pointed out by law but the mode of performing them laid down with accuracy and precision." (4 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 1st ed., 345; Downing v. Mason County, 87 Ky. 208, 12 Am. St. 473, 8 S.W. 264; Heigel v. Wichita County, 84 Tex. 392, 31 Am. St. 63, 19 S.W. 562; Fry v. County of Albemarle, 86 Va. 195, 19 Am. St. 879, 9 S.E. 1004.)

In the absence of some constitutional or statutory provision, counties are to be treated as political divisions of the state created for convenience, and are not liable for damages caused by the neglect of their officers or agents. (Barnett v. Contra Costa County, 67 Cal. 77, 7 P. 177; Bailey v. Lawrence County, 5 S.D. 393, 49 Am. St. 881, 59 N.W. 219; Cooley on Constitutional Limitations, sec. 247; Davis v. Ada County, 5 Idaho 126, 95 Am. St. 166, 47 P. 93; Packard v. Voltz, 94 Iowa 277, 58 Am. St. 396, 62 N.W. 757.)

The county commissioners are not individually liable in damages for injury caused by defective public highways or bridges. (Worden v. Witt, 4 Idaho 404, 95 Am. St. 70, 39 P. 1114; Gorman v. Commissioners of Boise County, 1 Idaho 655.)

In a newly and sparsely settled country, public policy demanded that neither county commissioners nor counties be made liable in that class of cases. (Worden v. Witt, supra; Bailey v. Lawrence County, supra.)

The duty owed by county commissioners is to the public, and not to the individuals who chance to pass along a particular highway. (Shearman and Redfield on Negligence, 3d ed., 156; Daniels v. Hathaway, 65 Vt. 247, 26 A. 970, 21 L. R. A. 377; Cooley v. Chosen Freeholders of Essex, 27 N.J.L. 415; Livermore v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 29 N.J.L. 245.)

BUDGE, C. J. Morgan, J., and Rice, J., concur.

OPINION

BUDGE, C. J.

This action was brought by appellant against respondents, the individual members, as a board of county commissioners of Cassia county, the road overseers for the east and west Burley road districts, respectively, and their respective bondsmen, to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of a carelessly constructed bridge on one of the public highways of said county. A general and special demurrer was interposed, which was sustained, and, appellant refusing to plead further, judgment was entered dismissing the action. This appeal is from the judgment.

The errors assigned are: That the court erred in sustaining the demurrer, and in entering the judgment.

It is conceded by appellant that if the decision in Worden v Witt, 4 Idaho 404, 95 Am. St. 70, 39 P. 1114, is still the law in this state, that the judgment must be affirmed. But it is contended by appellant that the decision was induced by peculiar local conditions which then existed and which it is said no longer obtain. In that case it was held that county commissioners are not individually liable in damages for injuries sustained by reason of defective highways, under the laws of this state. We are asked to reverse this decision, and our attention has been called to a few cases from other jurisdictions which have criticized the rule there announced. But on further examination of the authorities and the principles involved we are not disposed to disturb the rule announced in Worden...