Riddle v. Delaware County

Citations

• 156 Pa. 643
• 27 A. 569
• 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1392

Syllabus

<p>Bridges — County commissioners — Discretion.</p> <p>County commissioners cannot be controlled by a private citizen in the exercise of their discretion in building a county bridge, either as to the size of the bridge, its plan, or the location of its piers and abutments: Delaware County’s Ap., 119 Pa. 159.</p> <p>Injury to water power of mill — Evidence.</p> <p>In an action by a mill owner against a county to recover damages for an injury to his water power caused by the construction of a county bridge, it is not improper to ask a witness whether the bridge was located in the best practical way to pass the waters in time of flood, where the general scope of the testimony of the witness was that in time of freshets the abutment of the bridge seriously obstructed the ventage of the water, and thus interfered with plaintiff’s water rights.</p> <p>In such a case it is not improper for the court to charge that if, under the circumstances, a larger span would have obviated the damming up and flooding, plaintiffs were entitled to recover for the injuries sustained.</p> <p>Notice of character of bridge■ — Estoppel.</p> <p>Plaintiffs were not estopped by the fact that before the erection of the bridge they were informed by the commissioners of its character and manner of erection, and permitted the commissioners to commence and complete the bridge without objection.</p> <p>Contributory negligence — Erection of milldam.</p> <p>Where the milldam and other structures injured by the construction of the bridge were all erected prior to the construction of the bridge, the general rule as to contributory negligence cannot be invoked by the county to defeat a recovery.</p>