Court Opinion

ID: 9598377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:08:21.071787+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:41.381044
License: Public Domain

Felton, Chief Judge,
dissenting as to counts 1 and 2. The first count of the petition is based on the theory that the county erected the bridge in 1928, and was originally under the duty to repair it, and that the county was liable for damages resulting from the failure to repair, and that since the *419Highway Department had taken over the bridge and its repair, the Highway Department was liable for damages for failure to repair. This theory is not correct in this case for the reason that the bridge was alleged in count 1 to have been built by the county in 1928. At that time a structure over a railroad was held not to be a bridge, so the county would not have been liable for damages for failure to repair it; consequently, the State Highway Department would not be liable for such damages under the existing laws. Ga. L. 1953, p. 120, amending the definition of the term “bridge” included a structure over a railroad, but this court in Joyce v. Whitfield County, 28 Ga. App. 797 (113 S. E. 52), held that Code § 95-1001 did not apply to a bridge constructed prior to the date of the enactment of that law, 1888, unless the same had been substantially rebuilt. It follows that the amendment to Code § 95-1001, passed in 1953, changing the definition of a bridge to include a structure over a railroad, could have no application to a bridge built in 1928. Since the county would not have been liable for the damages sued for in the first count, the State Highway Department is not liable therefor. If liability is claimed against the State Highway Department in the first count under Code § 95-1909, the claim is not well founded for the reason that said section provides immunity to the Department from the damages sued for.
Count 2 sets forth no cause of action for the reason that this count alleges that the State Highway Department constructed the bridge in 1928 and that the Department was under the duty to keep it in repair. The 1950 amendment of Code § 95-1909 (Ga. L. 1950, p. 420 (l,c)) provides in part: “. . . provided, however, the duty of maintenance imposed upon the department by this section shall not operate to subject the department to liability on account of damages resulting from any failure of such maintenance.” It will be observed that a similar immunity was not provided for counties as to their duty of maintenance of county bridges. The reason for the distinction is not clear, but it exists, nonetheless. Unless the above immunity has been repealed the second count sets forth no cause of action. Ga. L. 1953, Jan-Feb. Sess., p. 120, amending Code § 95-1001 did not repeal the above immunity provision as to *420the Department. Code § 95-1001 originally provided solely for the liability of counties and the caption of the act of 1953 makes no reference to the department’s liability. No repeal by implication was effected because the subject matter of the Department’s liability was not mentioned. The two liabilities are entirely separate, and a repeal by implication of the immunity provision of the amendment of 1950 could not be said to have occurred under any known rule as to repeals by implication. Ga. L. 1957, p. 592 did not change or modify the immunity provision above referred to. A reading of the caption and amendment will show that as amended the words “existing laws” were retained in the law. The other amendment simply provided for a different kind of service upon and notice to the Department. Our province is to declare the law as it exists, not to try to explain or justify it. The General Assembly has clearly exempted the Department from liability for such injuries as are sued for in the second count, and it is not within the province of this court to remove the exemption from the clear provision of the law.
Bell, J., concurs in the dissent as to count 2. Jordan, J., concurs in the dissent as to counts 1 and 2.