Court Opinion

ID: 9864618
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 14:26:49.544126+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:54.443393
License: Public Domain

*167THE COURT.
Appellants have asked for a rehearing on this appeal in order to obtain a more explicit statement of the opinion of this court as to the liability of the county supervisors for failure, if there was such, to place barriers or warning signals at the place where a portion of the bridge was washed out by the floods.
This part of the opinion is expressly shown to be by way of dictum, and was only intended to make clear the point that we were not in accord with the contention that the Pridham Act absolved those in charge of the care and maintenance of highways from liability for negligence in failing to place warnings or barriers at dangerous breaks in the road until such time as it might be convenient to repair the break in the highway. We were not undertaking to say upon whom such liability would rest. Moreover, in another part of the opinion it is expressly stated that “where the supervisors have, by appropriate general rules, regulations, and directions, provided for the maintainance and repair of the highways by the road commissioner, in the absence of specific knowledge of his failure to perform his duty in some particular case, they are relieved from responsibility for the results of his negligence. ’ ’
The petition for a rehearing is denied. But perhaps in the denial of the application we have sufficiently illuminated the “guide-post,” which petitioners ask us to “repaint,” to enable them to decipher the inscription thereon.
A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on April 7, 1920, and the following opinion then rendered thereon:
THE COURT.
In denying the application for a hearing in this court after decision by the district court of appeal of the second appellate district, division two, we are not to be understood as expressing or intimating any view as to the correctness of that portion of the opinion which relates to the matter of neglect of the commissioner or supervisors with regard to safeguarding the approach to the dangerous break on the bridge by barriers or warning signals. As is expressly stated in the opinion, this question is not involved in
*168this appeal and that portion of the opinion is purely by way of dictum.
The application for a hearing in this court is denied.
Angellotti, C. J., Shaw, J., Lawlor, J., Olney, J., and Kerrigan J., pro tern., concurred.