Court Opinion

ID: 9504875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:59:03.846394+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:09.941223
License: Public Domain

DAVID, J.,
concurring in result.
I concur in the result reached by the majority. However, I am concerned that the language, “[ajbsent ownership, maintenance, or control of the county roadway, Sheriff had no duty to warn of a hazardous condition,” may be interpreted too broadly. Op. at 455.
I understand the posture of this case to be a review of a motion to dismiss. Regardless, a scenario can be easily imagined where a complaint might allege that a sheriff discovered a bridge had been suddenly washed away and failed to do anything. In such a scenario, I believe the sheriff may have a duty to exercise ordinary and reasonable care by warning the highway department and remaining on the scene until assistance arrives. Therefore, I concur in the outcome of this particular case but am hesitant for the subsequent application of this holding that the sheriff can escape any liability on the basis of non-maintenance and control of the county roadway. Here, under the circumstances alleged in this case, I agree with the majority that the Sheriff owed no duty, and if he did, his common law duty to use ordinary and reasonable care required by the circumstances was discharged based on his warning to the highway department.
DICKSON, J., joins.