
    Kelly, Respondent, vs. The Town of Darlington, Appellant.
    
      November 9
    
    
      November 28, 1893.
    
    
      Pleading: Injury from, defective bridge: Proximate cause.
    
    A complaint which, after describing certain alleged defects in a bridge, states that “ by reason, entirely, of the insufficiency, want of repair, and defects aforesaid, of and in said bridge,” a wagon in which plaintiff was riding was precipitated therefrom, causing serious injuries to her, sufficiently alleges that the defects were the proximate cause of the injury.
    APPEAL from the Circuit Court for La Fayette County.
    Action for personal injuries resulting from falling from an alleged defective bridge upon a highway in the defendant town. The complaint charged, in substance, that the bridge was too narrow to be safely traveled, -was dangerously high, being about twelve feet above the river bed, and was without guards or railings; that by reason of said defects, and without fault on the part of the plaintiff or driver, a team of horses and the wagon attached, in which wagon plaintiff was riding, were precipitated off of said bridge into the stream, causing serious injuries to the plaintiff. The complaint also alleges the timely giving of the notice required by sec. 1339, R. S., and the filing of a claim as required by sec. 824, R. S.; and a copy of said notice and claim, which are identical, is attached to the complaint as an exhibit. Said notice describes and locates the bridge with exactness; alleges, as defects, that there were no guards or rails thereon, that it was too narrow, and that it was unnecessarily and dangerously high, being about twelve feet' above the bed of the water; and alleges that plaintiff received her injuries by reason of said .defects in the bridge. The complaint also contains allegations showing the rejection of the claim by the town board of audit before suit brought. A general demurrer to the complaint was overruled, and defendant appeals.
    For the appellant there was a brief by Orton c& Osborn, and oral argument by P. A. Orton.
    
    For the respondent there was a brief by Wilson dc Martin, and oral argument by R. J. Wilson.
    
   WiNslow, J.

Why this demurrer should have been interposed is not apparent. It is manifest that it was rightly overruled. It is said that the defects in the bridge are not alleged to be the proximate cause of the injury. The complaint distinctly alleges that “ by reason, entirely, of the insufficiency, want of repair, and defects aforesaid, of and in said bridge,” said team fell from the bridge. Nothing further seems necessary.

By the Court.— Order affirmed.  