## Facts

- A private landowner owned a bridge on his land providing access near docks.
- Members of the public commonly used the bridge to reach the docks, but it was not maintained as a public highway at public expense and was used only by permission or toleration.
- The bridge was alleged to be out of repair or unsafe.
- A user of the bridge fell, suffered fatal injuries, and died.
- The deceased’s widow sued the landowner for negligence based on failure to keep the bridge in safe repair.
- The reviewing court entered judgment for the defendant, rejecting liability on these facts.

## Issues

1. Whether a landowner who permits or tolerates public use of a way or bridge on his land owes users a duty to keep it in safe repair absent a statutory or contractual obligation.
2. Whether liability can be imposed for mere nonfeasance (failure to repair), as opposed to misfeasance (a positive act creating danger).

## Decision

- Judgment for the defendant landowner.
- Mere permission or toleration of public use did not create a duty to maintain or repair the bridge for users’ safety.
- The claim alleged nonfeasance (failure to repair), which was insufficient to establish liability.
- The court recognized that liability could arise where the owner commits a positive act that creates or introduces a danger, but not for omission to repair alone.

## Legal Principles

- A landowner generally owes no duty to persons using a way over his land (whether by public right of way or permissive use) to repair or maintain it in a safe condition.
- The law distinguishes misfeasance (affirmative creation of a hazard) from nonfeasance (mere failure to maintain); liability is not imposed for nonfeasance in this setting.
- Regular public use, without more, does not convert users into invitees or imply an undertaking by the owner to maintain the way for their safety.
- A duty may arise if the owner affirmatively creates a dangerous condition or obstruction on the way.

## Conclusion

The court held that a landowner who merely allows the public to use a private bridge is not liable for injuries caused by disrepair because no duty to repair arises from permissive use; liability requires an affirmative act creating danger rather than a failure to maintain.


Gautret v. Egerton, L.R. 2 C.P. 371 (C.P. 1867)