_ 36 4 FEDERAL REPORTER.
’ 927,) is that delayed union of a fracture of the ulna is not uncommon,
and is attributable to various causes, compatible with good treatment,
some of which are very obscure. The defendant is liable for the injury,
including the delayed union, unless the latter is plainly the result of
gross negligence or mistreatment since the fracture occurred. I think
the plaintiff did the best he could; for himself under the circumstances,
and with.th;e limited means at his command. I
. The plaintiff claims that this isa case for vindictive or exemplary
damages; but there is no element of that kind in this case.
Considering the pain, physical and mental, suffered by the plaintiff,
the injury to his team and buggy, and the expense of medical treatment
and loss of time, and not altogetherjoverlooking the expense and delay
he has been putto in asserting his. claim against the defendant, I assess
the damages at $1,500, for which sum, and the costs and disbursements
of the action, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment. (
p _ , , . _ nom.
That quasi municipal, corporations, as counties, are not liable in a civil action for
_ injuries arising from failure to keep in repair highways or bridges within their limits,
unless such actton ,is expressly given by statute, even though the duty to repair is en-
joined by law see Barnett v. County o Contra Costa, (Cal.) 7 Pac. Rep. 177; Woods v.
Colfax Co., (Neb.) 7 N. W. Rep. 269; Arline v. County of Lauren , (Ga.) 2 S. E. Rep.
833. A county is not liable for an injury caused by the negligence of its com mission-
ers in failingtc maintain in repair a sidewalk on the court-house premises. Dosdall
v. County Com’rs of Olmsted Co., (Minn.) 14 N. W. Rep. 458. On the other hand, that
counties are liable for injuries caused 'by negligence in constructing and maintaining
bridges, see Ferguson v. Davis C0., (Iowa,) 10 N. W. Rep. 906} Huif v. County of Powe-
shiek. (Iowa,) 15 N. W. Rep. 418; Cooper v. Mills Co., (Iowa,) 28 N. W. Rep. 633; Board
v. Montgomery, (Ind.') 9 N. E. Rep.- 690. ‘But such liability does not extend to inju-
ries caused by the negligent construction and maintenance of ditches. Green v. Harri-
son Co., (Iowa,) 16_N. W. Rep. 136; Nutt v. Mills Co., Id. 536.
‘ ‘ » it Os1;oRNE*·21. CITY OF DETROIT.
I (0'hcuit Oaurt, E. .D. Michigan. October 25, 1886.)
1. Mumcrrsr. Conrouarron-Lranrnrry 1*01: Dnirncrrvm Wax-Evrnn¤cn—Pnn·
· vxous Accmmrr. .
In anxaction for injuries occasioned by a defective sidewalk, it is not error
to permit a witness to testify that, about two months before the accident, he
an his wife met with an accident at the same place. ‘
2. SsMm4—ExrnnmnNr rsnronm J ¤nY—UNswonN Exrnnr.
A Where the plaintiif claimed to be paralyzed by the fall, it is not error to
permit her medical attendant, who had not been sworn, to demonstrate her
oss of feelingrto the jury, by thrusting a pin into the side plaintiif claimed
to be paralyzed. ° ‘
8. SAME-—GONZDITION or Srnnwamz Nam `nr.
Evidence is properly admissible as to the condition of the sidewalk in the
immediate neighborhood of the spot where the accident occurred, if it be
so near the place of the accident that a person examining the walk there
_ would be likely also to notice the defect w ere the accident occurred.
4. SAMn—StmsnnUENr rREPAIR.
It is also competent to show that the walk was repaired about a week after
the accident, as tending to show that the walk was out of repair at the time
of the accident; . V »