Case Name: Eliza F. Snowden v. Bader et al. (Comrs.)
Court: Ohio Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1901-01
Citations: 12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 335
Docket Number: 
Parties: Eliza F. Snowden v. Bader et al. (Comrs.)
Judges: Swing, Giffen and Jelke, JJ.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Decisions
Volume: 12
Pages: 335–335

Head Matter:
BRIDGES — COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
[Hamilton Circuit Court,
January Term, 1901.]
Swing, Giffen and Jelke, JJ.
Eliza F. Snowden v. Bader et al. (Comrs.)
Duty or Providing Guard Rails for Bridge Approach.
It is the duty of county commissioners to provide guard rails along the entire length of approaches to county bridges, and they are officially liable for injuries caused by reason of their failure so to do.
Heard on Error.
Wm. Worthington, for plaintiff in error.
Wilson, Cosgrave & Jones, contra.
The plaintiff in error, while driving along a “fill” on the Tower River road ten feet high, was thrown from her carriage and severely hurt by a cow climbing up the embankment and frightening her horse, which shied and went over the embankment on the opposite side. The accident happened five hundred feet from a bridge to which the embankment or fill led. Counsel tor plaintiff in error contended that the fill constituted an “approach” to the bridge, and there was, therefore, a duty on the part ot the county commissioners to provide guard rails along its whole length. Counsel for the commissioners denied that this fill was an approach to the bridge, but was a part of the turnpike road, and permitted the case to go to the jury upon the plaintiff’s evidence, with the result that verdict was returned for the commissioners bv the common pleas.

Opinion:
Swing, J.
The record in' this case shows that the commissioners constructed this road as an approach to the bridge. They fixed the status of the road as an approach to the bridge. They had a right to do it, and ate bound by it; and as a matter ot law we can not say that it is not an approach to a bridge; being such, they were bound to provide guard rails.
We see no other inference to be drawn from the evidence but that the accident was directly caused by the want of guard rails. If guard rails had been properly placed, the cow could not have got upon the road, neither would the horse have gone over the embankment. The direct contributing causes are clearly shown to be the cow getting on to the road, the frightening of the horse by the cow and its going over the embankment.
Guard rails are designed to prevent this, and undoubtedly would have done so in this instance. We find no contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The judgment and verdict was cleaily against the evidence, and the judgment should be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.