Burrill v. City of Augusta

• Citation: 3 A. 177,78 Me. 118
• Parties: BURRILL v. CITY OF AUGUSTA.
• Decision Date: 30 January 1886
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

3 A. 177

78 Me. 118

BURRILL

v. CITY OF AUGUSTA.¹

SUPREME COURT OF MAINE.

Filed January 30, 1886.

On exceptions by plaintiff to the ruling of the presiding judge, sustaining the defendant's demurrer to the declaration. The opinion states the facts.

H. M. Heath, for plaintiff.

Winfield S. Ghoate, for defendant.

DANFORTH, J. The plaintiff in her writ substantially alleges that the officers of the fire department of the defendant city, having occasion to use a steam fire-engine belonging to said city for a necessary purpose, after said use carelessly and negligently allowed the engine to stand within the limits of a public street in said city, and, while so standing, negligently drew the fires, and permitted the steam to escape therefrom with a great noise, whereby the plaintiffs horse, which she was rightfully driving upon the same street, was frightened, ran away, and the plaintiff, without any fault on her part, was thrown to the ground and injured. To this declaration a demurrer was filed, which was sustained by the court. To this ruling exceptions were filed. Thus the sole question presented is the liability of a municipal corporation for the negligent acts of the officers of its fire department while in the discharge of their official duties.

The statute provides that cities and towns may organize a fire department, provide for the election of the necessary officers, and "prescribe their style, rank, powers, and duties." Rev. St. c. 26. The object and purpose of this organization is public, and not private. It is not intended to nor does it especially advance the corporate interest or immediate emolument of the city or town where it is established. Its advantages may indeed be great, but they are indirect, and enjoyed in common with the public. The officers, though chosen directly by or under ordinances or by-laws established by cities and towns, are public officers, performing public duties, acting upon their own responsibility, controlled by fixed principles and established rules as found in the laws applicable, with no power of control over or to impose any obligation upon the corporation, except so far as such authority may be conferred by express statute or act of the corporation. They are a part of the municipal government, and not servants or agents of the municipality. Hence their relation to their respective cities and towns differs in no respect from that of municipal officers generally. The absence of corporate liability for the acts of municipal officers, with its limitations and exceptions, has been so fully discussed both in our own state and others, and with such uniformity as to result, that it is unnecessary to go over the ground again. Mitchell v. Rockland, 52 Me. 118; Brown v. Vinalhaven, 65 Me. 402; Woodcock v. Calais, 66 Me. 234; Hill v. Boston, 122 Mass. 344; Gordon v. Taunton, 126 Mass. 349; Whart. Neg. § 191, and cases cited. That the principles settled in these cases are equally applicable to the officers of the fire department follows from the nature of their offices as above stated, and is shown by Fisher v. Boston, 104 Mass. 87; Hafford v. New Bedford, 16 Gray, 297; Shear. & R. Neg. § 139; Dill. Mun. Corp. (3d Ed.) § 976. A careful examination of these cases will show that the municipal corporation has been held liable for the negligence of its officers only when made so by an express statute, or the act out of which the claim grew was directly and expressly ordered by the corporation. Neither of these exceptions are found in this case. No statute is relied upon; none exists imposing any responsibility except where buildings are demolished to prevent the extension of fires; and there is no pretense that the act...