Case ID: ohio-cc-ns_14/html/0343-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LIABILITY FOR. COLLAPSE OF A BRIDGE.
    Circuit Court of Hamilton County.
    City of Cincinnati v. Edward Armstrong.
    
    Decided, July 29, 1911.
    
      Bridges — Collapse of Wooden Structure from Decay — Constructive Notice to Municipality of Its Unsafe Condition.
    
    1. In an action for damages on account of injuries to a team and driver from tlie collapse of an old wooden bridge, a verdict against the municipality must be sustained, where it appears from the testimony that the bridge had been in use-for a great number of ye.ars and the timbers supporting .it were rotten, and there was no contributory negligence on the part of the driver.
    2. Where it appears that the board of public service had been notified of the unsafe condition of the bridges in that particular locality six weeks before the accident, constructive notice of the condition of this particular bridge, which would have been revealed by a reasonably careful inspection, is sufficiently shown.
    
      Constant Southworth, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Harry J. Wernke, contra.
    Smith, P. J.; Swing, J., and Jones, J., concur.
    
      
       Affirming Armstrong v. Cincinnati, 8 O. L. R., 224.
    
   We do not think the evidence in the above case discloses any contributory negligence on the part of the defendant in error, but on the contrary the evidence is such as that but one conclusion can be drawn, which is, that the bridge in question was out of repair. The evidence upon this point being that “the timbers supporting it were rotten; that there was no live current in the wood and that it had been built and in use for a long time prior to its taking over by the city from the county.”

The jury unequivocally answered three special interrogatories entirely consistent with the general verdict to the effect that the defect in question was of such a character that it could have been discovered by a reasonably careful inspection; that such an i-nspp.ct.inn was not made before the accident, and that the city had notice of the unsafe condition of the bridge about six weeks before.

Upon the latter question of notice-the court is-o'f the opinion that there is sufficient evidence to justify-the finding of the jury upon this point. The attention of the board of public service was called to the unsafe condition of the bridges in that locality, and a written communication was sent to it specifying streets that needed repair, and we think that under all the evidence the constructive notice of. the unsafe condition of this particular bridge was sufficiently proven. ' .

" We see no érror in giving to the jury the special charge "on behalf of defendant in error, No. 5, as the same is fully sustained by the case of Commissioners v. Coffman, Admx., 60 O. S., 538.

The general charge correctly stated the law of the case, and finding no errors in the record, the -judgment will be affirmed.