Case Name: Green v. Harrison County
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1883-06-13
Citations: 61 Iowa 311
Docket Number: 
Parties: Green v. Harrison County.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 61
Pages: 311–312

Head Matter:
Green v. Harrison County.
1. County: liability for overflow of public ditch. Under the rule announced in Kincaid v. Hardin County, 53 Iowa, 430, it is held in this case that a county is not liable for damages caused by the overflow of a ditch constructed under its direction, and which has become obstructed by sediment.
Appeal from Harrison District Court.
Wednesday, June 13.
The petition states, that the plaintiff was in possession of a tract of land on which there was growing a crop of corn, which was entirely destroyed by reason of an overflow of water from the Spooner ditch, which had been constructed by the authority and direction of the county. The negligence of the defendant, it was stated, consisted in permitting the accumulation of sediment in the ditch, which caused the overflow. It was stated that the defendant had actual and constructive notice of the obstructions in the ditch. The plaintiff sought to recover the value of the crop destroyed. A demurrer to the petition was sustained, and the plaintiff appeals.
8. H. Cochrane, for appellant.
J. W. Barnhart, for appellee.

Opinion:
Seevers, J.
— Against the decided weight of authority, it lias been held in this state that counties are liable for damages caused by reason of the negligent construction and maintenance of county bridges. Wilson & Gustin v. Jefferson County, 13 Iowa, 181. This case has been repeatedly followed, and probably will continue to be, unless the general assembly interferes and provides otherwise. ' Bridges are constructed for the benefit of the general public. The ditch in question was constructed more particularly for the benefit of abutting owners. The benefit to them was direct, while the general public is only remotely and incidentally affected. We are not disposed to extend to ditches the rule which has been held to apply to bridges. There is a clear distinction between the two. A court-house is constructed for the benefit of the whole county, but it has been held that, when a person received a personal injury because of its negligent construction, he cannot recover therefor of the county. Kincaid v. Hardin County, 53 Iowa, 430. The case at bar falls within the rule, and is controlled by the case just cited.
Affirmed.