Dodge v. Granger

• Decision Date: 27 February 1892
• Citation: 17 R.I. 664,24 A. 100
• Parties: DODGE v. GRANGER, City Treasurer.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

24 A. 100

17 R.I. 664

DODGE

v. GRANGER, City Treasurer.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Feb. 27, 1892.

Trespass on the case by Caroline E. Dodge against D. L. D. Granger, city treasurer of Providence. Defendant demurred. Demurrer sustained.

William W. Blodgett, Edward W. Blodgett, and Willard B. Tanner, for plaintiff.

Nicholas Van Slick and Cyrus M. Van Slyck, City Sols., for defendant.

TILLINGHAST, J. This is an action of trespass on the case to recover damages from the city of Providence for injuries resulting from the alleged negligence of said city in failing to keep a certain public street or highway known as "Exchange Place"in suitable repair, so that it should be safe and convenient for travelers. The declaration sets out that some of the members of the fire department of said city connected with the fire engine house known as "Station No. 1," situated on said Exchange place, for the purpose of more easily cleaning said station, placed one of the hook and ladder trucks belonging to said city, and in the care and under the control of said fire department, so that one of the ladders projected across the sidewalk directly in front of said engine house, where it was allowed to remain for the space of, to wit, one hour, and that the plaintiff while passing along said sidewalk, between 4 and 5 o'clock in the afternoon, in the exercise of due care, came in contact with the said ladder, and was injured. It also sets out that the members of said fire department had been for a longtime prior thereto, to wit, for the space of 10 years prior to said accident, in the frequent and daily habit of placing their trucks so that the ladders thereof would project across said sidewalk in front of said house, without warning to the public, at all hours of the day. The defendant demurs to the declaration, on the ground that the members of the fire department are public officers, for whose negligent acts the city is not liable. The plaintiff, while admitting the general doctrine contended for by the defendant in support of its demurrer, yet claims that the case stated in the declaration is not governed by the ruleamounced, for the reason that the act complained of was not one which was done at a fire, or on the way to or returning from a fire, but was the negligently placing of a truck at said station, and leaving it there so that the projecting ladders formed an obstruction to the street and sidewalk, for which the city is liable the same as if said obstruction had been placed there by a mere stranger. We do not think that the plaintiff's position is tenable. It is the duty of the fire department to take care of its apparatus, and keep it in proper condition for use, as well as to use it for the extinguishment of fires; and the members of said department are acting in the line of their duty while so taking care of said appliances, as fully as when actually engaged in extinguishing fires. The efficiency and usefulness of such a department must necessarily depend very largely upon the diligence exercised in the management and care of its appliances when not in actual service, so that the same may at all times be in proper condition for instant use. The cleaning of the station house referred to in the declaration was evidently necessary and proper, both on account of the health and comfort of the firemen stationed there, and also for the better protection and preservation of said appliances. It is evidently necessary...