
    18130.
    Windom v. Colquitt County.
    Bridges, 9 O. J. p. 487, n. 90; p. 488, n. 94.
    Decided July 14, 1927.
    Action for damages; from Colquitt superior court—Judge W. E. Tilomas. April 5, 1927.
    The plaintiff’s petition as amended alleged, in substance, that when he was driving his automobile on a designated public highway of the defendant county on January 17, 1926, “he crashed into a pile of lumber negligently placed on said road at the approach to a bridge about two and one half miles northwest of Eunston in said county,” and the impact wrecked the front end of the car and caused other damage described; that the defendant had negligently torn out the bridge and negligently failed to maintain any warning signs or lights for the guidance of traffic; that the defendant had negligently failed to keep the bridge and the approach thereto in reasonable repair so that persons who traveled thereon could use it with convenience and safety; that the pile of lumber, which completely blocked the passage of the bridge, was placed immediately next to the bridge opening across the stream, upon a fill made by the defendant approximately five feet high, which fill was a necessary part of the bridge itself, and the lumber was placed on that part of the public road which constitutes the abutment and approach to the bridge and which is essential to the existence and use of the bridge; that the bridge constituted a necessary part of the public highway and was erected by the defendant since December 19, 1888; that the' plaintiff had no knowledge of the dangerous condition of the road, and that the defendant knew of the defect complained of at the time of said accident and long prior thereto,, and the said defective and dangerous condition had existed for such a length of time as in law to charge the defendant with knowledge thereof; and that the plaintiff was damaged in a stated sum.
   Broyles, C. J.

This was a suit against a county for damage to an automobile, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the county in maintaining a defective bridge on a public highway. The facts of the case, as stated in the petition, failed to show any actionable negligence on the part of the county. Furthermore, the petition, properly construed (most strongly against the plaintiff), clearly showed that the plaintiff, by the exercise of ordinary care, could have avoided the injuries sued for. The court properly dismissed the petition, on general demurrer. Judgment affirmed.-

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

P. Q. Bryan, for plaintiff,

cited: 126 Ga. 699; 15 Ga. App. 687.

J. 0. Gibson, for defendant,

cited: Civil Code (1910), §§ 384, 748, 4426; 116 Ga. 371; 106 Ga. 743, 747; 24 Ga. App. 717-18; 52 Ga. 538; 118 Ga. 200 (2); 61 Me. 292; 29 Ga. App. 624; 134 Ga. 69; 8 Ga. App. 229 (5); 74 Ga. 107.  