Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1897-02-04
Township and County Bridges and Then
Approaches


Approaches
We published the gist Of the decision
Of the State Supreme Court III the case
of Francis versus Franklin twp. at the
time of its appearance, but have been
requested to publish the full text of the
opinion, and do 50. 1t reads as follows
A county bridge known as Gallagher
bridge spans Muddy creek, in Franklin
township. Butler county. The bridge
proper is fifty nine feet long and twelve
wide. with elevation above the water al
ordinary stages Of six to ten feet; wing
walls for the approaches extending back
from the shore abutments for a distance
of fifteen 10 twenty feet, and were filled
in between, almost to a level with the
top of the walls. making the approaches
to the floor of the bridge, from the road,
rise about nine feet in fifteen or twenty.
The wing walls of the approaches were
without sufficient guard rails or other
barrier. The plaintiff, Mary Francis.
with three members of her family, on
9th of February, 1895, in a one-horse
sled. was driving on the highway to
cross the bridge, when the horse became
uncomfortable, ran away, jumped over
one of the wing walls to the ice below,
dragging the sled and occupants after
him. Plaintiff was very seriously injur
ed. Alleging negligence on the part Of
the township in not erecting guard rails,
she brought this suit for damages.
There was evidence the horse was blind
and unmanageable generally, and was
.l. 4 l.
driven. Two questions, therefore, were
submitted to the jury: |. Was defend
ant negligent in not putting up guard
rails? 2. Should contributory negli-
gence be imputed to plaintiff Both
questions were answered in favor of the
plaintiff by the jury, who found a yer
for her in 81 800 damages. a third
question, one of law, solely for the court,
was raised, and decided against the de
fendant 1t was this: In view of the
fact that the bridge was county bridge,
was the township answerable for the
character Of the structure or for neglect
10 keep it in repair? This question full
ly appears by defendants fourth point
a. follows:
The bridge in question was a county
bridge, and consisted not only OF the
structure spanning the scream, but alsC
of the approaches and wing walls lead
ing thereto, and the duty of building
repairing and maintaing the same il
safe condition for public travel devolveC
upon Butler county by statutory enact
ment, and not upon the defendant town
ship, and the verdict Of the jury mus
be for the defendant.
Without at present noticing the evi
dence tending to show the township die
work at times in repairing the bridge
and approaches thereto, as if that wer,
its duty, we viii first consider the duty
imposed by statute on the respective
territorial ub-diyisions of the state, il
reference to such bridges as this. The
3Ith section of the act of 1886 enacts
when a river, creek or rivulet oVel
which it may be necessary to erect ;
bridge crosses a public road or highway
and the erecting OF such bridge requires
more expense than ii is reasonable on,
or two adjoining townships should bear
the court shall on petition
order . view in manner provide
for in the case Of roads, and if, on the
report Of viewers it shall appear to The
court, grand jury and commissioners o.
the county that such bridge is necessa
~, and would be 100 expensive for sucf
township, q u it shall be entered
on the record as a county bridge
BY proper proceedings under this act
in 1869 this bridge was entered Of recorC
as Il county bridge. The duty OF con
structiCn and repair before that time
was unquestionably on the township
and any damages from neglect Of that
duty was necessarily a township liabili
ty; nor was the township relieved from
the duty Of repairing such bridges until
the passage Of the act Of April 18th, 1912
the first section'of which declares: 1t
shall be the duty Of the county commits
sioners of the several counties Of thi,
commonwealth TO repair all bridges
erected by the county, and to pay tn,
expenses Of such repairs our of tho
county treasury in the usual manner.
Then certain counties Of which Butler
IL not one, are excepted. The effect OF
these two statutes was TO take from the
township its common law and statutory
duty 10 repair, and impose it on the
county.
The court below was Of the opinion
the act Of Of 1S43 did not relieve that
township of its primary liability to re
pair but that it still continued; and
that the duty Of the county 10 repair
only made two municipalities answer
able where before there was bat one.
And further, that this being the case
plaintiff could at her election maintain
her snit against either or both. We
dissent from this construction. We
are clear, there was no legislative in,
tention TO impose upon the township
aud county exactly the same duty in
vOlving the exercise Of watchfulness
and discretion on the part Of both, and
ii joint and several responsibility Of
neglect duty, too, affecting yitally
the interests Of the public and which
naturally would lead TO confusion and
cross purposes III performance, or what
is more probable, to neglect by both.
Such q construction Is rcpugnant to
reason and opposed 10 public policy.
Evidently by the first act tLc burden
Of erecting the new structure was I'M
posed on the county, and By the second,
the burden Of keeping 1t in repair; and
il was wholly unnecessary by the u5e OF
negative words, in either case, 20 say
the duty &.as no longer on the township
the affirmative lahguags oI both ttat
utes import a complete legislative
transfer Of the duty from one TO the
Olncf. Inc cases cllcd Dy lnc learned
Judge cf the court below, are very far
from supporting hi5 Conclusion. Gates
W p. H. r.. Co, 100 Pa, &c. was tho
case Of a bridge built by the railroad
company to supply a highway destroy
sd 10y the construction OF its rOadbed
Under the general railroad act Of lsfJ
the relative duties of township aud rail
roads with reference 10 such Il matter,
are altogether different from those Of
. township and county under the acts
or is3g and is43 and such cases, there
fore furnish rs no analogy 10 help u5
out here Dalton VI Upper Tyrone
township, 131 Pa, lS, was the case Of n
bridge supplied by "A railroad company
ay contract; no question Of the county's
liability was t3isod il was assumed the
duty was on the t0wHeAip. and the
question was whether there was sufli
cient evidence 20 submit TO the jury.
The proposition, that where an injury
IL cans.a by the concurrent neglect Of
two or more, the inquired pnrtv can sue
all or either needed no citation Of au
thorities, that point is well settled.
Bot 30 constitute concurrent negligence
each must fail in the performance Of
dtty Here if the township owed no
duty il owed no damages b,causc of
neglect We hold in this and all like