Washington, Colesville & Ashton Turnpike Co. v. Case

Citations

• 80 Md. 36
• 30 A. 571
• 1894 Md. LEXIS 100

Syllabus

<p>liability of Turnpike Companies — Defective Bridges — Negligence— Pure Accident — Evidence.</p> <p>In an action against a turnpike company to recover damages for án injury alleged to have been caused by the defective timbers of a bridge on defendant’s road, evidence of a witness, who examined the bridge several months after the accident, to the effect that the timber was decayed, and that, from his knowledge of the qualities of such wood, the decay must have set in at the time, of the accident, is admissible.</p> <p>A turnpike company is bound to keep its bridges in safe condition, and is liable to a person who, while exercising ordinary care himself, is injured in consequence of the unsafe condition of a bridge.</p> <p>But such corporation is not an insurer of the safety of travellers using its roads and bridges. If a bridge is properly maintained, and an injury is caused by the accidental displacement of a single plank, of which the company had no notice and could not by the exercise of reasonable diligence have known, then the company is not liable.</p> <p>For a mere accident, unmixed with the negligence or fault of the party to whom it is attributed, no action will lie. An accident which furnishes no cause of action, is an inevitable occurrence, not to be foreseen and prevented by vigilance and care, and' not occasioned or contributed to, in any manner, by the act or omission of the company or its agents.</p> <p>The fact that the bridge in question was repaired a year after the injury complained of, furnishes no evidence from which the plaintiff can claim that the repairs were made because the bridge was in a defective condition at the time and place of the accident.</p> <p>The care and caution which a discreet and prudent individual would exercise if the risk were his own is not the care and caution required of a turnpike road or bridge company. The mere use of ordinary care in repairing the bridge would not exculpate the defendant if it had not by such care