Maryland case law › County Commissioners v. Hause

County Commissioners v. Hause

106 Md. 439 (1907) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: AffirmedBriscoe✓ Good law
HoldingThis was an action against the County Commissioners of Harford County to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff (Hause) when the saddle horse he was riding, part of a four-horse team hauling canned goods to Havre de Grace, fell into a large hole in a…

442 Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a suit to recover damages for personal injuries received by the appellee, while traveling on one of the public roads of Harford County with wagon and horses. The declaration contains a single count. It avers that the County Commissioners of Harford County negligently allowed one of the highways, to-wit, the public highway leading from Havre de Grace to Level in Harford County to become out of repair at a point at a gate of a certain Archer Botts, on the public highway, and negligently permitted the same to remain out of repair and in a dangerous condition for the travelling public for a long time, so that on the loth day of March, 1905, the plaintiff while in the exercise of due care on his" part, while travelling by riding the saddle horse of a four-horse team was injured by the saddle horse falling into a deep and dangerous hole on the highway at and near the gate of Archer Botts, which the defendant had negligently permitted to remain out of repair for a long time and thereby was thrown down, crushed and permanently injured and incurred loss of time and expense in and about the care of his wounds and injuries.

At the trial of the case, the plaintiff presented three and the defendant ten prayers. The Court below granted the prayers as offered, except the defendant’s first prayer, which was modified and as modified was granted. The action of the Court, in granting the plaintiff’s prayers, and in granting the defendant’s prayers as modified, under the facts of the case, constitute the first and only bill of exception. The verdict and judgment being in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant has appealed.

The legal propositions involved in this appeal are few and simple, and have been announced by repeated decisions of this Court. By section 1, of Art. 25, of the Code, the County Commissioners of each county of the State are declared to be a corporation and shall have charge of and control over the property owned by the county and over county roads and bridges, and whenever in their opinion the public interests require or 443 will be thereby advanced may commit the whole matter of grading and constructing public roads and the repairs thereof, to the charge of competent and scientifically educated, civil engineers who shall direct and manage all such public roads under the immediate control of the County Commissioners. And by section 2, of the same Article, it is provided, they shall also in their respective counties have control over all the public roads and make such rules and regulations for repairing, clearing, mending and perfecting the same, and providing for the payment of the cost of the same, as they may deem necessary. The duty imposed upon the County Commissioners of each county in this State, under the sections of the public general law, above quoted, and the legal liability on the part of the county, for injuries resulting from a neglect of duty, to keep the roads in repair and in a safe condition, have been too well

This is a preview of County Commissioners v. Hause. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.