County Commissioners v. Minderlein

Alvey, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This action was brought against the County Commissioners of Somerset County to recover damages for an injury sustained by the plaintiff, by reason of alleged defects in one of tbe public county roads, while she was travelling thereon. The case was tried upon the general issue plea, that the defendants did not commit the wrong alleged. And at the trial, three exceptions were taken by the defendants to rulings of the Court, excluding evidence offered by the defendants for the purpose of showing bias or prejudice on the part of a witness examined for the plaintiff.

By the first bill of exception it is shown, that the plaintiff called a witness, Alfred Hayman, by whom she proved that the public road, when and where the accident occurred, was greatly out of repair, and was in bad condition, and that Randall Hayman, the supervisor of the road at the time of the accident, was well aware of its bad condition for some time before the accident happened, but failed to repair the road until after the plaintiff was injured. Thereupon, the defendants, on■ cross-examination of this witness, for the purpose of showing bias or prejudice on his part against Randall Hayman, asked the question, whether he and Randall Hayman, the supervisor, were, at the time of the trial, “on good terms;” but, upon objection by the plaintiff, the Court excluded the question, on the ground that Randall Hayman was not a party to the suit. To this ruling the defendants excepted. And in the third exception it is stated, that the defendants, on cross-examination of this same witness, proposed to ask him whether he had not been engaged in a bitter controversy with the friends of Randall Hayman, the road supervisor, with reference to said Randall Hayman’s appointment, and whether he, the witness, “did not entertain feelings of animosity towards the (then) County Commissioners, or some of them, on that account.” To this ques ⁵⁷⁰ tion objection was made, and the Court sustained the objection, and the defendants excepted.

The second exception presents no question that had any relevancy to the matter of inquiry, and therefore, the question proposed to be asked was properly excluded by the Court. It is true, the supervisor of the road, Randall Hayman, was not a technical party to the action, but if the defective condition of the road which occasioned the accident existed in consequence of his neglect of duty as supervisor, he is liable over to the defendants for the damages that they may be required to pay as the natural result of his negligence. Ches. & O. Canal Co. vs. Com. of Allegany County, 57 Md., 201 ; City of Chicago vs. Robbins, 2 Black, 418 , and same case in 4 Wall., 657 . It does not appear whether or not a bond was given by the supervisor for the faithful performance of his duty; but, by the Act of 1867, ch. 290, which has been retained and continued in force by the Acts of 1868, ch. 299; and 1884, ch. 340, as to Somerset County, it is made the duty of the County Commissioners of Somerset County to require the several road supervisors appointed by them to give bond to the State, for such sum as they may deem proper, conditioned for the faithful performance of the duties required of such supervisor; and it is provided that such bond may be put in suit for the benefit of any person suffering by the neglect of the supervisor to keep the roads in his district in proper order and repair.

It is but reasonable and just to presume that such bond was required, and was in fact given by the supervisor, whose conduct was involved in this case. But whether such bond was given or not, it •can admit of no doubt that the supervisor is liable for the consequences of his neglect of duty; and if the defendants are required to pay damages, by reason of such neglect, they have their remedy over against the supervisor. Such then being the relation and liability of the supervisor to the defendants, though not a technical party upon ⁵⁷¹ the