Brownlow's Knoxville Whig, and rebel ventilator. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1863-1866, 1866-01-10
Decisions of the Supreme Court.

| @. C. BARRETT AND WIFE, rs. THE WOOD
! BURY d MURFREESBORO TURNPIKE
| COMPANY
| This suit was commenced by defendants in error
to recover damages for an injury sustained by the
defendant in error Mrs Barrett in crossing bridge
! Of the plaintiff in error which was out of repair.
1t appears the bridge of the company out of
repair for crossing, and wOrkmen had been engaged
in repairing it few days before the accident. Du-
| ring the time they repairing ii, distractions
were placed on it and the road TO the cit
/ liens OF its condition. On the morning of the &C
/ cident many persons had crossed the bridge there
| being no Instructions and it had been completed
except some loose panks the floor the CENTER
which had not been pinned down. The plank5 IN
crossing sprung and created a noise that tended to
alarm horses in crossing. In approaching the
bridge the defendant in error Mrs. Barrett alighted
| from her horse and gave him to her son, young
| man who was with her, to lead him over. She
went ahead. In approaching that part OF the
bridge where the planks were loose, the horse be-
came alarmed, broke from the boy who was holding
| him, the defendant in error Mrs. Barrett
nficting serious injuries. There proof the horse
was unsafe for lady to ride. \ judgment was
rendered for defendant-a trial was moved for,
| supported by atfdavits, which was refused by the
court. The record is filed for error. 1t is now in
sisted the charge of the court is erroneous. His
| honor charged as follows: Two things must be
shown, FIRST that Mrs. Barrett observed such care
and prudence as the law required from one in her
situgtion second if this is shown, whether the de-
PENDANTS were guilty of such negligence as would
subject them to liability. If the injury to Mrs.
Barrett the result of her gross negligence,
or If she contributed 10 it the plaintiff could not
recover, for if the injury could have been avoided
by ordinary care and prudence, then there would
have been no liability. Ordinary care and pru-
denCe ara such as would be reasonably expected
from one in the situation of Mrs. Barrett"
This is the principle and substance Of the charge.
We are unable to see any error. The pliintfS in
error a corpOraton-have rights and privileges
granted them-duties and obligations are imposed.
! They legally bound to keep their road and
bridges in order. If any injury arises by reason of
their wrongful acts they responsible IN damages.
1t their duty the bridge not being in repair, TO
have placed distractions it, to prevent persons
from passing it. The injury complained of
was the result of their negligence. 1t can make no
difference whether Mrs. Barrett riding wild
OF gentle horse if their bridge out of order and
no Instructions placed on 1t to persons OF the
danger, or prevent them from passing they are
Ponsibe. The injury was the result Of their negli-
genca.
Corporations are becoming so numerous, it is tine
policy of the State to attach to them the liza
blties to which natural persons are subiec. and
liable. This principle must be enforced The
rights of the citizen require it-9 HUmb, 757. Men
when associated together in q corporate capacity,
frequently lose that regard for individual rights
they have as private persons. The direct response
blty is in some degree removed, and truly did
Lord Coke remark, that corporations have no
souls" and the experience of mankind has become
satisfied of the truth of the remark.
They can only be controlled through their interest,
and held TO strict accountability for their negi-
gence. The verdict Is fully supported by the evil
dence. There is no error in the record. The iudg-
meHt is affirmed
SHACkLEFORD, Judge.
Attest: j. G. FRAZIER, Clerk
OFFICE or TIE CLERK OF THE SUPREME
COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DIVISION OF
THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, AT NASHVILLE.
l. jesse G. Frazier, Clerk of said Court, do here
by certify that the foregoing is q true perfect and
complete copy of the opinion of the Court delivered
at its December Term, 1863 in the case of 6. c.
Barrett and wife vs.. the Woodbury. and Murfrees-
boro Turnpike Company, file in my office.
-, In testimony whereof I have hereunto
LIS set my hand snd affixed the seal of said
49, Court at Office in the Capitol at Nashville,
on this fhe Dist day of Decemher 1865