Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

106 Mo. App. 607

Schooler v. Arrington

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided May 30, 1904

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1904-05-30

Appeal ’ from Chariton Circuit Court. — How. John, P. Butler, Judge. (1) It is a well-settled rule that when the law requires absolutely a ministerial act to be done by a public officer and he neglects or refuses to- do the act he is liable in damages at the suit of a person injured. Knox Co. v. Hunolt, 110 Mo. 74; State v. Spencer, 79 Mo. 314; Insurance Co. v. Leland, 90 Mo. 177; 23 Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law, p. 378, also sec. G-, p. 379.

Relies on Pike v. Megoun · Reed v. Conway · Gibeline v. Smith

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1904-05-30

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently July 2016

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 12 state decisions

30190419101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ELLISON, J.

¶2Plaintiff instituted this action by petition in which he charges that defendant was bridge commissioner of Chariton county and as such had supervision and control of the construction of a bridge across one of the streams in that county, which the county court had let to a bridge builder. It is charged *609that the defendant so negligently and carelessly performed his duties of supervision and inspection that he allowed improper material used therein and the bridgé to be built in such way as to be weak and unsafe for travel by the public. That notwithstanding such negligence defendant reported to the county court that the bridge had been properly built as required by the contract. It is then alleged that plaintiff in reliance upon the safety and security of the bridge, went on to it with a steam threshing outfit for threshing grain, when it broke down, precipitating the machine to the bottom of the stream whereby it was greatly damaged, etc. A different count stated personal injuries received, by plaintiff.

¶3The trial court held that the petition did not state a cause of action and sustained a demurrer thereto on that ground.

¶41. The petition did not charge that defendant’s action was instigated by willfulness, malice or corruption. It is well settled in this State that when a public officer is charged with duties which call for an exercise of his judgment and discretion, he is not liable'for an erroneous performance unless he has been guilty of willful wrong, malice or corruption. Reed v. Conway, 20 Mo. 23; Pike v. Megoun, 44 Mo. 491; Edwards v. Ferguson, 73 Mo. 686; St. Joseph v. McCabe, 58 Mo. App. 542.

¶52. But counsel for plaintiff stated in argument, and it is true, that the petition charges carelessness and negligence against defendant in the performance of his duties. That charge, however, in our opinion, does not meet the requirement of the law. Negligence and carelessness are generally esteemed as not only, not will-fullness, but rather the opposite. Gibeline v. Smith, 106 Mo. App. 545.

¶6The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.
/106/moapp/607 · .json · Public domain