Board of County Commissioners v. Topeka Bridge & Iron Co.

Citations

• 109 Kan. 223
• 198 P. 954
• 1921 Kan. LEXIS 110

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. County-line Bridge — Defective Work and. Materials — Action for Damages by County With Whom Contract was Made. Where a county contracts with a builder for the construction of a bridge on the county line and pays to the builder the full contract price, although the adjoining county reimburses the contracting county for óne-half of the contract price, the latter county may maintain an action against the builder for damages for the entire contract price where the bridge, on account of noneompliance with plans and specifications, is destroyed by high water.</p> <p>2. Same — Proper Evidence to Prove Defective Workmanship and Materials. To prove that the workmanship and material in the concrete abutment of a bridge was defective, samples taken from the abutment after it had been blasted open with dynamite may be introduced in evidence.</p> <p>3. Same — Cracks in Concrete Bridge. Repairing cracks in a concrete bridge will not remedy defective workmanship and material used in its construction.</p> <p>4. Same — Approaches Not Designed to Support Bridge Abutments. Where a contract for the construction of a bridge does not provide that the approaches shall be so built as to support the abutments, the abutments should be so constructed that they, without the approaches, will support the bridge.</p>