
    (First Circuit — Hamilton Co., O., Cir’t Court
    Jan. Term, 1901.)
    Before Swing, Giffen and Jelko, JJ.
    ELIZA F. SNOWDEN v. BADER ET AL., COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
    
      Duty of county commissioners to provide guard rails to bridge approaches—
    County commissioners are bound to provide guard rails along the entire length of approaches to county bridges, and will be liable in their official capacity to one injured by reason of their failure, so to dc.
    Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton eounty.
    The plaintiff in error, while driving along a “fill” on the Lower River road ten feet high, was thrown from her carriage and severely hurt by a cow climbing up the embankment and frightening her horse, which shied and went over the embankment on the opposite side. The accident happened BOO feet from a bridge to which the embankment or fill led. Counsel for plaintiff in error contended that the fill constituted an “approach” to the bridge, and there was, therefore, a duty on the part of the county commissioners to provide guard rails along its whole length. Counsel for the commissioners denied that this fill was an approach to the bridge, but was a part of the turnpike road,and permitted the case to go to the jury upon the plaintiff’s evidence, with the result that verdict was returned for the commissioners by the common pleas.
    
      Wm. Worthington, for Plaintiff in Error.
    
      Wilson, Cosgrave & Jones, contra.
   Swing, J

The record in this case, shows that the commissioners constructed this road as an approach to the bridge. They fixed the status of the road as an approach, to the bridge. They had a right to do it,and are bound by it; and as a matter of law we can not say that it is not an approach.to a bridge; being suoh, they were bound to provide guard rails. We see no other inference to be drawn from the evidence but that the aocident was directly caused by the want of guard rails. If guard rails had been properly placed, the cow could not have got upon the road, neither would the horse have gone over the embankment. The direot contributing causes are clearly shown to be the cow getting on to the road, the frightening of the horse by the cow and its going over the embankment.'

Guard rails are designed to prevent this, and undoubtedly would have done so in this instance. We find no contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The judgment and verdict was clearly against the evidence,and rhe judgment should be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.  