Year: 1872

Lancaster county, the Supreme Court has
very pointediy indicated the duties of the
Supervisors of Highways Mr. Mooro's
teamster, on his way from Mt Joy with a
load of wheat, in crossing over the bridge
which spans the Chiques, was preciptated
into the stream, aud had horse killed.
the wagon broken, and a large quantity
of wheat destroyed.


An action was instituted by Mr. Moore
against the townships, and the jury gave
damages for the loss sustaiped On an
appeal the Judgment was affirmed.


The Court rendered the following
opinion But two questions need to be
noticed in this case-the duty of repair
and the liability of the townships for
latent defects. Without a duty of repair
no liability rests upon the municipality
As general proposition, but by no means
universal, bridges are treated as portions
of the highways which cross them, and
are to be maintained by the same persons
to whom the duty of repairing the high
ways is committed. In this State the
duty is statutory, and therefore we must
look to the statutes for its nature and
extent. The 9th section of the Act of
June 18th, requires public roads or high.
ways to be etfectualy opened and con
stantly kept in repair, and at all seasons
to be kept clear of all impedments to
easy and convenient passing aud travel
ing, at the expense Of the respective
townships, as the law shall direct BY
the 10th section, those laid out on line
which divides two townships, shall be
opened and kept clear and in repair at the
JOINT and equal charge of such townships.
The 9th and following sections requires
these duties to be performed through
Supervisors, to whom large powers are
given for the purpose. Coming to the
34th section, it is provided that where
a small creek, over which bridge may
be necessary, shall be the boundary, or
on the division line Of townships, the
bridge shall be built and maintained at
the joint and equal expense of said town
ships, by their respective Supervisors, in
the manner directed by law in the case
of public roads, which may be the
division line of townships Thus it is
clear that, by law, the primary duty OF
maintaining and repairing the bridge in
question, lay on townships, defendants
Jointly, the stream over which it was
built being on the division line between
them. For that purpose the Supervisors
of roads of the respective townships were
the agents constituted by law, and it is
equally clear that the personal liability
of the Supervisors, for their neglect to
perform this duty, does not lesson the
primary liability of the townships to those
who suffer injury from their neglect
But it is contended that
the defect in this bridge being latent, no
liability can be imputed to the townships
until it is shown that notice of the defect
was given to the Supervisors in whose
charge the bridge lay. This is the chief
question, and is not without difficulty
The defect here was inward rottenness of
the timbers, which constitute the main
strength and chief support of the bridge
1t was not outwardly visible, one of the
Supervisors having inspected the timbers
outwardly short time defore it fell. But
the evidence shows that the bridge had
been erected and stood the time it is
usual that such timber will last-that it
was uncovered and open to the weather,
and that the actual state Of the timbers
can be ascertained by persons having
ordinary skill upon such subject. 1t
was testified that the internal condition of
the timbers can be readily determined by
boring into them at proper places. The
question of liability for this latent defect
was determined by the jury on these
facts The Court having instructed them
that constant watchfuness on the part of
the Supervisors was a duty to the public,
and having left them to determine
whether the Supervisors had used ordinary
care in performing this duty and in ap
plying the proper tools to ascertain the
soundness Of the timbers of the timbers
Of the bridge. That municipal corpora
ton, though bound to the duty of
maintenance and repair, is not absolutely
bound for the soundness of the structures
1t acts as part of a public highway must
be admitted to be the general doctrine of
the authorities on this question. 1t is
not au insurer against all defects,
latent as well as patent, but is liable only
for negligence in the performance of its
duties. Hence it is said, as the result OF
the authorities, that where the defect in
lawful structure is latent, or is the work
of a wrong doer, either express notice OF
it must be brought home to the corpora
ton, or the defect must be so notorious
as to be evident TO all who have occasion
to pass the place or to observe the
premises, 10 which case the corporation
is charged with constructive notice, be
ING in fault for not knowing the lact.
But what is negligence, is itself ques-
ton 10 each case, and must always depend
on its peculiar circumstances. Great
danger demands higher vigilance aud
more efficient means to secure safety
where the peril is small, less will suffice"


'The degree of care having legal standard,
but being measured by the facts that