
    Elizabeth Willis, Appellant, v. Armstrong County.
    
      Negligence — Bridges— Guardrail —Proximate and remote cause — Non-suit.
    
    In an action against a county to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff by reason of a wagon in which she. was riding going over an approach to a bridge not provided with a guard-rail, anon-suit is properly entered where it appears that after the wagon had passed the bridge safely, the traces broke, and tke'wagon, freed from the horses, ran back, down grade, into the stream.
    Argued Oct. 15, 1897.
    Appeal, No. 138, Oct. T., 1897, by 'plaintiff, from order of O.' P. Armstrong County, Dec. T., 1896, No. 215, refusing to take off nonsuit.
    Before Sterrett, C. J., Green, Williams, McCollum, Mitchell, Dean and Fell, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Trespass for personal injuries. Before Rayburn, P. J.
    The facts appear by tlie opinion of the Supreme Court.
    
      Error assigned was refusal to take off nonsuit.
    
      M. F. Leason, for appellant.
    It is difficult to understand tlie difference between this case and that of a horse becoming frightened and backing upon and over the side of a bridge, as occurred in the case of Lydia Bitting v. Township of Maxatawny, 177 Pa. 213; 180 Pa. 359.
    If this horse had taken fright when on the bridge, and because of the absence of guard-rails backed the buggy off, we think no one, in the face of our numerous adjudicated cases, would have questioned the answerability of the defendant: Lower Macungie Twp. v. Merkhoffer, 71 Pa. 276; Twp. of Newlin v. Davis, 77 Pa. 317; Scott v. Montgomery, 95 Pa. 444; Hey v. Philadelphia, 81 Pa. 44.
    
      James II. Me Cain, with him W. J. Christy, for appellee.
    It is the neglect of duty which constitutes negligence; and where the law imposes no duty there can be no negligence : Francis v. Franklin Twp., 179 Pa. 197.
    When, as in this case, the facts are not controverted, the question of proximate cause is for the court: Behling v. Pipe Lines, 160 Pa. 359; Ry. v. Taylor, 104 Pa. 306 ; Twp. of West Mahanoy v. Watson, 112 Pa. 574; Yoders v. Am well Twp., 172 Pa. 447; Chartiers Twp. v. Phillips, 122 Pa. 601; Herr v. Lebanon, 149 Pa. 222; Schaeffer v. Jackson Twp., 150 Pa. 145; Wagner v. Jackson Twp., 127 Pa. 184; 133 Pa. 61; Kieffer v. Ilummelstown Boro., 151 Pa. 304.
    November 8, 1897:
   Per Curiam,

It clearly appears from the evidence that the absence of guardrails was not the proximate cause of the accident which befell the plaintiff, without any fault on her part.

The undisputed evidence is that after the wagon in which plaintiff and several others were riding had safely passed over the bridge and proceeded up the hill fifty or sixty feet, the eyes in two of the traces gave way, and this resulted in freeing the horses from the wagon and from the control of the driver. Being thus situated, the wagon ran back down the grade, and missing the bridge went over the embankment into the stream below. If the traces by which the wagon was drawn had not broken, the accident would not have occurred. Viewing the testimony in its most favorable light for the plaintiff, there is nothing in it to justify a verdict against the defendant. At most the absence of guard-rails was merely the remote cause of her injury. The sole efficient and proximate cause was the breaking of the harness, in consequence of which the control of the wagon was lost.

The learned trial judge rightly refused to take offt the judgment of nonsuit.

Judgment affirmed.  