Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-10-03
COURT ECISlONS
Notes o.. Cases Recently Decided,
AZ Which are ofS Interest 70
Our People.
DIGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN.
tExcluslvely for vlrEinian-P llotl
BLAKELEY v. 3LAURBNs COUNTY,

obAiAELE r. Y. LAIN SOON l 1
Supreme Court OF South Carolina,
june %, 1893.
WHERE A GENTLE MULE BE-
CAME FRIGHTENED AT A HOLE
IN A BRIDGE, AND BACKED OFF,
THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
Fl DEFECTS IN THE BRIDGE WE'RE
THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE
INJURY WAS FOR THE JURY.
WHETHER TILE COUNTY WAS
NEGLIGENT IN NOT HAVING
RATINGS TO THE BRIDGE, OR
IN LETTING THEM ROT, IS FOR
THE JURY.
This was an action to recover dam
ages sustained by the plaintiff by rea-
son of negligence on the part of the
defendant In keeping in repair q bridge
on highway In the county OF Laurens,
while attempting to cross said bridge.
The allegations in the complaint are
that, at the time the disaster occurred,
there was hole In the floor of said
bridge; that the bridge was too mar
row for safety of the travelling public,
and part of the railing OF the bridge
was wanting, having been allowed to
become rotten or fallen of; that the
plaintiff was attempting to cross said
bridge i'll q one-horse wagon drawn by
mule, and that 1.-THE mule, approach
ing the hole in the floor OF the bridge.
ana Ill consequence Of said hole, sud-
denly stopped, and pushed the wagon
backward, running the wheels of the
wagon along by the side of the railing
and rubbing the wheels against the
same, until the wagon arrived at a
point where the side railing of tho
nrfdge was down and absent, when the
nind wheels Of the wagon went over
BOARD, throwing the plaintiff out of the
wagon, and over the edge OF the bridge,
70 the ground below. a distance of some
10 or IL feet, and the hind wheels OF
the said wagon, in falling from the
bridge fell upon the plaintiffs arm,
and broke, crushed and fractured the
same.
There was q Judgment Of nonsuit in
the lower court. and plaintiff appealed.
The court, after reciting the testimony,
says:
1t seems to us that under this testi-
mony the case should have been left
to the jury to say whether it was suf-
nccnt to show negligence on the part
of the defendant, and that such negli-
gence was the proximate cause OF the
Injury complained OF. 1t may be that
the hole in the bridge would not, If 1t
stood alone, constitute the proximate
cause of the injury; but, when 1t is con-
nected with the other defect,-want
of banisters or railing on part OF the
bridge,-it might be sufficient, and at
all events, that was q question for the
jury, and not for the court, to decide.
The circuit judge seems to have dis
regarded the negligence which might
be inferred from the want of a railing
on the bridge. because, as he said, 'the
law does not require a raining" While
1t may be true that there is no statute
recurring. in express terms, ratings on
bridges upon public highways, yet 1t
may also be true that the want of such
ratings will constitute negligence in
a given case, where the testimony
shows that such protection is pru-
dent precaution against such accidents
as that which occurred In this case
There is testimony tending to show that
the county authorities, charged with
the duty OF erecting and keeping in re-
pair this bridge. had provided suitable
ratings, but that they had failed to
keep them in repair, by reason whereof
they had rotted or fallen off, This
fact tends to show that the public au-
thorities themselves thought the rail-
ings We're necessary. At all events, this
was also a question which should have
been left to the jury to determine. In
the light of the height and width of the
bridge and of the action of the county
authorities. 1t seems to us, therefore,
that, under the well-settled rule, there
was error in granting the nonsuit.
Reversed 1I-1l II