Fisher v. St. Joseph Water Co.
| Decision Date | 05 December 1910 |
| Citation | 151 Mo. App. 530,132 S.W. 288 |
| Parties | FISHER v. ST. JOSEPH WATER CO. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
A water company required consumers to pay for connections between the street mains and their premises. These connections included a stop box to be erected within the sidewalk space, from which the water could be turned off without entering the consumer's premises. The boxes furnished were suitable for the use required, but the one over which plaintiff fell had been caused to work up by the action of the frost so as to become an obstruction in the sidewalk. Held, that the consumer under the water company's reasonable regulations received the water at the street main, and not at his property line, and hence, the box being his property, it was his duty, and not that of the water company, to maintain the same in a reasonably safe condition.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Buchanan County; Lucian J. Eastin, Judge.
Action by Fannie B. Fisher against the St. Joseph Water Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
Brown & Dolman, for appellant. Mytton & Parkinson, for respondent.
Plaintiff sued to recover damages for personal injuries she alleges were caused by negligence of defendant, a public service corporation engaged in the business of providing water to the people of St. Joseph. A trial to a jury resulted in a verdict and judgment in her favor, and the cause is here on the appeal of defendant. The injury occurred at 9:30 p. m. January 8, 1908, in a path in the sidewalk space on the north side of Holman street just west of Twenty-Second street, in St. Joseph. The street was a public thoroughfare, and the path had been used by pedestrians many years. Plaintiff, walking home from church, tripped on the end of an iron pipe which protruded four or five inches above the surface of the path, and fell heavily to the ground, sustaining severe injuries.
We refrain from going into details of the injuries, since no claim is made that the verdict was excessive. Counsel argue but one question; i. e., Did the water company owe a duty to people using that path to keep it free from obstructions to travel caused by the ill repair of appliances used in conducting water from the street main to the home of a consumer? It is the contention of plaintiff that defendant owed her such duty and was guilty of a negligent breach thereof, while defendant argues that the pipe which caused the injury belonged to and was under the control of the property owner, who, alone, was chargeable in law with the duty of keeping it in repair. Under authority of ordinances of the city, defendant had laid and was maintaining its mains in the streets and alleys in the prosecution of its business of vending water to consumers who might wish to buy it, and had promulgated rules and regulations, the pertinent points of which were as follows: When the owner or occupant of premises desired to avail himself of defendant's service, he was compelled to pay all of the expense of conducting the water from the street main to his premises. He could employ none but a plumber licensed by defendant who had given a bond conditioned for the observance of all of defendant's rules and regulations. The plumber was compelled to obtain from defendant the service pipes, stop boxes, stopcocks, meters, and other appliances and material used in installing the service and to follow specifications prescribed by defendant which required that a stop box and stopcock (purchased of defendant) should be set in the sidewalk, or sidewalk space, in front of the property. Using this appliance, defendant could turn on the water or shut it off without having to go on the premises—a very useful and effective weapon to compel the prompt payment of water bills. Defendant and its licensed plumbers had keys to these stop boxes, and the consumer was not allowed to have a key. There was but one type of stop box and stopcock provided by defendant, and that had a telescoped pipe which permitted the top of the box to rise with the surface of the ground when from natural causes, such as freezing, the ground was caused to swell and rise. The effect of this construction was that the rusting of the pipe at the joint would prevent the top from dropping back when the surface of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Independence Waterworks Co.
...upon the first one, or that of Fisher v. St. Joseph Water Company. Plaintiff insists that the present case is to be distinguished from the Fisher case because the ordinance in that case authorized company to make rules and regulations, which it proceeded to do, providing that the customer s......
-
City of Joplin v. Wheeler
...We think we should follow the Kansas City Court rather than be in conflict with it. Nor do we think that it can be said that because the Fisher grew out of negligence in maintaining the service pipes and that there was no ordinance making it the duty of the water company to repair these pip......
-
Williams v. Independence Water Works Co.
...with respect to constructing and maintaining lateral service lines, the law imposes such duty on the consumer. Fisher v. St. Joseph Water Co., 151 Mo. App. 530, 132 S.W. 288; City of Joplin v. Wheeler, 173 Mo. App. 590, 158 S.W. 924; Goldsmith v. City of Kennett, 78 S.W. (2d) 146 (Not repor......
-
City of Joplin v. Wheeler
...must be ultimately paid by the consumer. This is the line of argument used by the Kansas City Court of Appeals in Fisher v. Water Company, 151 Mo. App. 530, 132 S. W. 288. The appellant, to support its contention that this ordinance is valid under the power of the city to regulate rates, ci......