Bencke v. City of LaGrange

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bencke v. City of LaGrange

169 S.E. 63, 46 Ga. App. 723, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 212

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 13, 1933

Docket22595

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 169 S.E. 63 (Bencke v. City of LaGrange) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bencke v. City of LaGrange, 169 S.E. 63, 46 Ga. App. 723, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 212 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Guerry, J.

Plaintiff brought suit against the City of LaGrange alleging that he was injured and damaged by reason of driving his car into a branch which had washed away the bridge, and that he could not discover that the bridge had washed away, it being in the nighttime. He alleged that he had crossed the bridge going to the picture show a short time previously, and that when he came back over the same route there were no> red lights to warn him of danger or indicate that the bridge was not safe for travel, and no one there to warn him; and that the city was negligent in erecting said bridge, in that it did not weight it down and anchor it to its supports so that it would not float away, and in that it did not erect a bridge of sufficient width to permit the water to pass under it without injuring it. The evidence showed affirmatively that the bridge had washed away between the time that the plaintiff went to the picture show and the time that he returned; and, so far as the evidence discloses, the bridge may have washed away a few minutes before the alleged injury to the plaintiff occurred. The evidence failed to show that the city had any notice that the bridge had washed away, or any notice of any alleged defects with reference to the same; but it did show that the bridge had successfully sustained traffic and resisted floods for three years immediately preceding the alleged injury. The evidence failed to show that the City of La-Grange constructed the bridge; and even failed to show that the bridge was in the City of LaGrange. “Municipalities are not insurers of the safety of their bridges, and reasonable or ordinary care is all that is required of them. . . Nor does the care required extend to extraordinary occasions beyond the ken of general experience.” 9 Corpus Juris, 474; Warren County v. Evans, 118 Ga. 200 (44 S. E. 986). The court did not err in granting a nonsuit.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Guerry, J.

Plaintiff brought suit against the City of LaGrange alleging that he was injured and damaged by reason of driving his car into a branch which had washed away the bridge, and that he could not discover that the bridge had washed away, it being in the nighttime. He alleged that he had crossed the bridge going to the picture show a short time previously, and that when he came back over the same route there were no> red lights to warn him of danger or indicate that the bridge was not safe for travel, and no one there to warn him; and that the city was negligent in erecting said bridge, in that it did not weight it down and anchor it to its supports so that it would not float away, and in that it did not erect a bridge of sufficient width to permit the water to pass under it without injuring it. The evidence showed affirmatively that the bridge had washed away between the time that the plaintiff went to the picture show and the time that he returned; and, so far as the evidence discloses, the bridge may have washed away a few minutes before the alleged injury to the plaintiff occurred. The evidence failed to show that the city had any notice that the bridge had washed away, or any notice of any alleged defects with reference to the same; but it did show that the bridge had successfully sustained traffic and resisted floods for three years immediately preceding the alleged injury. The evidence failed to show that the City of La-Grange constructed the bridge; and even failed to show that the bridge was in the City of LaGrange. “Municipalities are not insurers of the safety of their bridges, and reasonable or ordinary care is all that is required of them. . . Nor does the care required extend to extraordinary occasions beyond the ken of general experience.” 9 Corpus Juris, 474; Warren County v. Evans, 118 Ga. 200 (44 S. E. 986). The court did not err in granting a nonsuit.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 S.E. 63, 46 Ga. App. 723, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bencke-v-city-of-lagrange-gactapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack