The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1871-12-22
Important Decision by the Supreme Court
at Pittsburgh, October O, 1S71-.Duties
OF Supervisors Defined.

Michael III. Moore Us. the 7o,onships of
Ropho and West Hempaeld.
1t will be remembered that on the
25th of November, 1866, on dark night,
while the plaintiffs team was crossing
the bridge which spans the Chiques.
dividing the townships of Rapho and
West Hempfeld, 1t broke down. and
the teamster, horses and wagon were
precipitated into the water, killing a
valuable horse, crushing the wagon,
and destroying a large quantity of
wheat. To recover damages, an action
was instituted by Moore against the
townships of Rapho and West Hemp
field. 1t was shown that the bridge
was rotten, and that, If the ordinary
tests had been used by the supervisors,
the defects could easily have been de.
tected. Under this evidence the court
charged that the townships were liable
the question of negligence being referr-
ed to the jury. The jury found 1878. .O3
for the plaintiff.
On writ oferror, the Supreme Court
affirmed the judgment of the Common
Pleas,a and delivered an opinion defining
the liabilities and duties of supervisors.
The opinion is too long for publication,
but its substance is embraced in the fol-
lowing points:
l. Bridges are treated as the portions
OF highways which cross them, and are
to be maintained and kept in repair by
the supervisors of the township.
2. The neglect of the supervisors to
Keep them in repair, subjects them to a
personal liability; but does not lessen
the primary liability OF the township
to those who suffer injury from their
neglect.
3. What is negligence must depend
upon the peculiar circumstances of each
case, and it is a question for the jury.
4. Great danger demands higher vigi.
nce,and more effectual means to secure
safety.
3. Applying these principles here, it
may be asked, what structure more i'm.
portant, in view Of the safety of life and
property, can be well imagined than
such bridge as this, having a span of
fifty-two feet, crossing from ten to
twelve feet above the stream, whose
water is middle deep. The accident it.
self is evidence of its important charac-
ter. The plaintiffs wagon was over.
turned in the fall, the body crushed,
the load of wheat fell underneath it
into the stream, and one Of the horses
was killed. AS remarked by our Brother
Read-"a bridge looks fair till it breaks
down-it is not like pit which you
can see and avoid" In practice, it is
used up to the last moment. Hence,
such structure demands constant Wig
lance to guard and preserve it. There
fore, when bridge is old, having stood
for the length of time the timbers com.
posing it are accustomed to last, and
when 1t may be reasonably expected
that decay has set in, it is negligence to
omit all proper precautions to ascertain
Its true condition. Nor will mere ap.
pearances in such a case excuse the neg
lect' 1t is matter of common knowl.
edge that invisible defects may, and
under such circumstances, probably do
exist-that either wet or dry rot may
have set in and not be visible, and
therefore should be sought for. But no
one of ordinary intelligence would
think of seeking for an unsound and
invisible defect by merely inspecting
the surface of the wood. This being
the case, it is clearly the duty of the
supervisors, having thus reason to be-
lieve that defects may exist, to call to
their assistance those whose skill will
enable them to ascertain the true state
OF the structure, and determine the
question of its safety. Without doing
this much at least, their duty to the
public is not performed; not to do it, is
therefore, negligence, and this is the
point on which the case went TO the
jury. There is, therefore, no error in
the submission.
Judgment affirmed.