Baum v. Somerville Water Co.

• Decision Date: 18 June 1913
• Citation: 84 N.J.L. 611,87 A. 140
• Parties: BAUM v. SOMERVILLE WATER CO.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

87 A. 140

84 N.J.L. 611

BAUM

v. SOMERVILLE WATER CO.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

June 18, 1913.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Action by Michael Baum against the Somerville Water Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Judgment sustained.

Condict, Condict & Boardman, of Jersey City, and James L. Griggs, of Somerville, for appellant.

Clarence E. Case, of Somerville, for respondent.

WALKER, Ch. On the afternoon of July 8, 1909, plaintiff's stove factory and ware house at Somerville were destroyed by fire. Within the door of the warehouse plaintiff had a coil of fire hose, equipped with nozzle and coupling. Directly in front of the door was a fire hydrant owned by the defendant company; also a similar hydrant on the plaintiff's grounds, with hose attached. Rising from the roof of the iron works was a standpipe, which was equipped with a fire hose. At the time of the fire the hose from the hydrants and standpipe was used and directed toward the fire, but the streams were inadequate, and none of them reached the fire. The department sent the hose company and the engine company, but they were unable to put out the fire for lack of sufficient water at sufficient pressure. The defendant company was incorporated for the purpose of supplying the towns of Somerville and Raritan with water. It had assumed, plaintiff contends, the duty of using reasonable care that there should be a constant supply of water at the fire hydrants under reasonable pressure for fire purposes, and the action was brought to recover his loss resulting, as he alleges, from failure on the part of the defendant to supply sufficient water at sufficient pressure to extinguish the fire.

The questions involved in this appeal arise out of the admission and rejection of evidence and the charge to the jury; and, as stated by plaintiff's counsel, the serious question involved arose out of the very nature and theory of the action; for, although the court may have erred in the admission and exclusion of evidence and in the charge to the jury, yet, if the cause of action does not rest upon sound principles, such errors are harmless. We think that the question as to whether or not there is in law any liability of the defendant to the plaintiff is of the very essence of the action and is dispositive of the case.

There is disclosed no contractual relation between the plaintiff and defendant and therein this cause differs from Middlesex Water Company v. Knappman Whiting Co., 64 N. J. Law, 240, 45 Atl. 692, 49 L. R. A. 572, 81 Am. St Rep. 467, where a company incorporated to supply water entered into a contract to furnish water to the owner of a factory with pressure sufficient for fire purposes, which factory was destroyed by fire by reason of the failure of the company to perform its agreement, and it was held that the company was liable for the damages sustained. The case at bar is more like the recent one in this court of Hall v. Passaic Water Co. (Sup.) 85 Atl. 349. In that case a water company was sought to be held liable for damages resulting to a mill through fire under a contract alleged to have been made between the owner of the factory and the superintendent of the water company for a supply of water of a...