Gray v. Batesville

Decided March 18, 1905

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1905-03-18

Action by John H. Gray against the city of Batesville, and the mayor and members of the city council, for damages caused from a defective bridge within the city limits which had been permitted to fall into disrepair and which the city had negligently failed to repair. The trial court instructed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant, which was done. Judgment was rendered accordingly, and the plaintiff appealed to this court. The city of Batesville is liable.

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 1925

7 state decisions

Relies on Collier v. Fort Smith · Arkadelphia v. Windham · Lee v. Huff

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1905-03-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

McCuiaoch, J.,

¶1(after stating the facts.) This case, as to the question of liability of the city, falls squarely within the rule announced in Collier v. Ft. Smith, 73 Ark. 447; Ft. Smith v. York, 52 Ark. 841, and Arkdelphia v. Windham, 49 Ark. 139, and is controlled by them.

¶2Now, are the mayor or members of the city council liable for a failure to repair the bridge? Officers or members of municipal bodies, charged with discretionary duties and powers with reference to public improvements, are quasi-judicial officers to that extent, and are not liable to damages for the improper exercise of those discretionary powers. Lee v. Huff, 61 Ark. 494; 23 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, pp. 376, 377; Pawlowski v. Jenks, 115 Mich. 275; Fath v. Koeppel, 72 Wis. 289; Smith v. Gould, 61 Wis. 31; Hannon v. Grizzard, 96 N. C. 293; Daniels v. Hathaway, 65 Vt. 247.

¶3Judgment affirmed.