History
  • No items yet
midpage
Gray v. Batesville
74 Ark. 519
Ark.
1905
Check Treatment
McCuiaoch, J.,

(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.

Now, 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.

Judgment affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Gray v. Batesville
Court Name: Supreme Court of Arkansas
Date Published: Mar 18, 1905
Citation: 74 Ark. 519
Court Abbreviation: Ark.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.