Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1874-07-22
Highway Damages.

Highway Damages.
The Waterman of few weeks ago con-
tanned long editorial upon the liability OF
towns for damages suffered upon the high
way. In its last issue Mr.. George w
Bassett corrected several errors of law and
fact into which the Waterman had fallen
and proposed repeal of the law making
towns liable. Mr.. Bassett evidently knows
what he is talking about and what he is
talking.
There is no disputing the fact that one
of the most prolific mothers of litigation il
Vermont is its policy of holding the towns
responsible to the individual for damages
sustained from the insufficiency or want
of repair of the highway. The abuses Of
the system crowd hard upon or outrun its
uses, and the unj Just suits and enormous
verdicts against towns are not the worst
of them. Towns have been bed so many
times that many Of them, whenever they
think it safe, will fight any case however
great the injury to the plaintiff however
poor their road and however great his
care We do not believe, notwithstandine
the great amounts awarded, that the sums
recovered at law Of towns by deserving
plaintiffs, year in and year out, pay the
expenses of prosecuting the suits. On
striking a balance, we believe it would be
found that the private damage clause of
the highway act is in fact a further dam
age to those, as body, who are injured
without their fault on account of the in
suficiency ofthe highway.
The right of the individual to recover OF
the town for damage suffered by him is
purely The creature of statute. The Amer
lean town succeeds to many of the duties
relating to highways that belonged to the
English parish, but the common law right
that was held by a person injured on the
highway against the latter does not attach
here against the town. The policy of all
the New England states has been TO make
the towns liable by statute. New York
adopted different policy and has never
held towns liable for private damage.
The traveller goes at his own risk, and the
town takes care of its highways with no
fear of suits arising from his carelessness
or its own neglect. A possible indict-
ment may threaten them, but no fine in
the shape of recovery for injuries
This New York rule is so entirely differ
ent from our own that it is evident they
must base their action on Il different view
of the corporate character of town. No
body disputes thH Justice of the settled
doctrine that a corporate body. enjoying
franchises and privileges for its own CON
venience or benefit, is liable in a civil ac-
ton for any injury resulting from its mis-
feasance, or from the neglect of any duty
imposed on it by its charter OF by law.
Corporations created for the public benefit,
for purposes of public policy, are as justly
free from liability to any such action; their
neglect in an offense against the public
and the public may punish and reform
them by means of an Indictment It is
evident that Vermont legislators have
looked upon towns as receiving conven-
fences and benefits from their incorpora-
ton that make 1t right to open a remedy
against them to be used by the individual.
They may also have thought that the dan
ger oRprivate suits would drive towns to
make better roads than would the danger
of Indictment alone. New York has as
evidently looked upon towns in their other
aspect, and, seeing onerous duties imposed
on them for the public benefit, regards
them rather as created by the state for its
own good than on the motion of the cor
porators themselves for their own benefit.
So regarding them, the New York legisla-
ture imposes no liability to civil action
by an injured person.
1t will well repay the citizens of Vermont
to compare these two views and the two
systems arising from them. When they
have done SO we think they will either
stand by the present law or squarelv re-
peal the town liability section of the stat
utes The lar is well settled; the fitcts
are what trouble Jurles (and very lately
the courts alsO). The facts in a well con-
tested road case sometimes act very much
like the bits of glass in a Kaleidoscope.
The courts have construed the law with
the greatest liberality towards the towns,
and they can be mulcted only on showing
that it was their fault with no contributorv
fault of the injured. The law needs no
if it is based on the better theo-
ry and has the better working in practice.
We confess to an inability to see clearly
why the Vermont way is not as firmly
based on reason as the New York one
but at The same time we cannot avoid the
conviction that they have as good roads,
get along better. and do no more injustice
than we, by their system. The subject at
any rate deserves Il full discussion by the
press and among the people.