The Denison review. [volume] (Denison, Iowa) 1867-current, 1914-03-25

mobile at the time did not give him
warning of this barricade in time to
have prevented the injury by reason Of
their being insufficient TO do so, still it
is the belief OF the court that it is the
duty Of a driver of an automobile in the
night time to be equipped with lights as
Will enable him to discover objects ahead
in time to avoid such Objects and it is
not only his duty to equip his machine
with such lights, but it is his duty to be
looking for such obstacles. These ma
chimes are powerful Instruments of
travel, of great weight, and capable. of
making great speed. The very nature
of their use upon the highway demands
that the driver Of such Il vehicle shall
exercise this degree Of care Were this
not so pedestrians or vehicles upon the
highway after night going in the same
direction as the automobile, when fol-
lowed by the automobile and overtaken
by the automobile would be in jeopardy
at all times, and as said in the case Of
Wisconsin, reported in the 25th l.. II. A.,
on page 40, it is in fact but ordinary
care and diligence to require of the driv-
err of an automobile this attention.
The court therefore feels that the
plaintiffs intestate was not free from
contrlbutory negligence and for that
reason that there is nothing to submit
to the jury in this case. The court also
feels that the other question which has
been argued on this motion to direct is
debatable question at least, with re-
spect to the county's liability in any
event for culverts such as the culvert
in question, which was but four feet
span. Under the law the board Of SUI
perviSors is required to build all such
culverts throughout the county, not on
ly upon the roads that have been desig-
mated county roads, but elsewhere
throughout the county. This was Gull
vert that was co ;tructed on a road that
was not designated a county road. 1t
was such culvert as under the law en-
acted by our last Legislature, should be
paid for primarily out of the funds of
the township raised by the one mill levy
provided for by the last legislature, but
in case of the insufiiciency such Gull
vert levy by the township the deficiency
was to be paid for by the county out OF
the road fund of the county. This pre-
sents a question as to the liability of the
county by virtue of the fact that such
culverts shall be built by the board of
supervisors. Our courts have uniformly
held in this state that the county is IL
able for negligence growing out of the
building or keeping in repair of county
bridges. This holding of our courts is
not in accord with the general holdings
of courts in other jurisdictions, and our
state that this rule of liability would not
be extended, and that there was no dis
position to enlarge upon the liability of
the county. Under the record in this
case II the county was held liable for
this negligence, if it is negligence, with
respect to building the township culvert,
when the statute provides that it may
be regarded as road work and paid for
out of the road fund, then there is moth
ing on principle to do but to hold the
county liable in ali cases involving ques-
tions of neglect with respect to work
done on county road work or county
roads that have been established in pur-
Suance to acts of our last legislature.
The court does not feel that the courts
of this state will carry the question of
liability to this extent and hold the
county liable for road work. And this
question being in the motion the court
on this question, together with the other
question discussed and all questions
arising on the motion itself sustains
such motion. To all of which the plant
iff duly excerpts.