Weirs v. Jones County

Supreme Court of Iowa · Torts

TortsNegligenceContributory NegligenceCounty LiabilityWarning Noticesunsafe bridgecounty bridgeboard of supervisors

Facts

The bridge was a county bridge known by the county board of supervisors to be unsafe, and the board had it examined and condemned. The board then placed conspicuous signboards at each end reading "Bridge unsafe" and stretched wires across each end as barriers, though on the day plaintiff crossed the wires had been loosened and thrown aside. Plaintiff crossed in the morning and returned in the evening, when the bridge collapsed, killing his horses and damaging his wagon. Plaintiff claimed he could not read English, did not see the signs or wires, and did not know the bridge's condition.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury that if the warning signs and wires were reasonably sufficient to notify a person exercising ordinary care that the bridge was unsafe, the plaintiff's inability to read English did not excuse him and would not permit recovery.

Rule

If a county maintains conspicuous warning signs and barriers reasonably sufficient to notify persons exercising ordinary and reasonable care that a bridge is unsafe, the county is not negligent, and a traveler cannot avoid that result by claiming inability to read English. The standard is ordinary care under the circumstances as applied generally, not a special standard tailored to a particular plaintiff's inability to read.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In rural Ohio, the Mercer County road crew learned that a wooden bridge outside Celina had become dangerously unstable. The crew posted large signs at both approaches reading "Bridge Closed—Unsafe" and hung bright chain barriers across each entrance, but a driver, Tomas Vega, who does not read English, drove onto the bridge at dusk and was injured when part of it gave way.

If the county's signs and barriers were reasonably sufficient to warn a person exercising ordinary care that the bridge was unsafe, which is the best result?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that a public entity is not negligent when it maintains conspicuous warnings and barriers reasonably sufficient to notify persons exercising ordinary care of the danger. The plaintiff cannot demand a special standard of care based on an inability to read English. The majority specifically rejected any requirement that the county post notices in all languages or install impassable barriers if reasonable warnings were already provided.