Harrison Co v. City Of Atlanta
Decision Date | 14 April 1921 |
Docket Number | (No. 11698.) |
Citation | 26 Ga.App. 727,107 S.E. 83 |
Parties | HARRISON CO. v. CITY OF ATLANTA. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
"The duties of municipal authorities in adopting a general plan of drainage, and in determining when, where, and of what size and at what level drains or sewers shall be built, are of a quasi judicial nature, involving the exercise of deliberate judgment and wide discretion; and the municipality is not liable for an error of judgment on the part of the authorities in locating or planning such improvements."
(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
Error from City Court of Atlanta; H. M. Reid, Judge.
Action by the Harrison Company against the City of Atlanta. The petition was dismissed on demurrer, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
The Harrison Company brought suit against the city of Atlanta for damages for a stock of goods, alleging in part that—
"During a hard rain in the city, a flood of water accumulated in front of petitioner's place of business, running down into plaintiff's basement, and injuring and destroying its property as aforesaid, " and "that the cause of said water running down into its said basement was due to the fact that the manhole or eye into said sewer from the street was entirely too small to carry off the flood of water into the sewer; it, being too small, permitted the water to run through and over the sidewalk and into the basement of petitioner's place of business, as the eye to the sewer was entirely too small to carry off into the sewer, as contemplated and as necessary to prevent the flooding of petitioner's basement."
There was also an allegation that—:
"The city neglected its duty in the construction of the eyes and inlets to the sewer in question, " and that this "negligent construction of the said sewer eye caused the water to accumulate in the public street and sidewalk in front of petitioner's property, and petitioner's property to become flooded at every hard rain."
No facts were alleged to show how or in what manner the city was negligent in constructing the sewer or the eye thereto. To the petition a demurrer was filed as follows:
The demurrer was sustained, the petition dismissed, and plaintiff excepted.
B. H. & Harvey Hill, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
J. L. Mayson and J. M. Wood, both of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
It was also stated in the notice that on several occasions the attention of the city officials was called "to the inadequate condition of the sewer in question in the event of a hard rain." (Italics ours.) It is clear that the only negligence stated in this notice is "the fact that the sewer eye was entirely too small." This is the foundation upon which the petition is constructed.
The words "inadequate condition, " in the connection in which they are used, can mean nothing more than that the sewer eye was insufficient in size for the specific purpose for which it was built. This notice makes no reference to any "defective construction" of the sewer eye, and the petition must be based upon the specific negligence alleged in the notice. When the notice states a ground of negligence the petition must be bottomed upon that particular ground of negligence, and this cannot be changed by allegations in the petition. For the notice to state one ground of negligence and the petition another would be to allow a person to bring a suit against a municipality without complying with section 910 supra, and would require the municipality to defend a suit it had been given no chance to settle. This would defeat the end sought to be attained by the passage of the act embraced in that section of the Code. We are not unmindful that in Langley v. Augusta, 118 Ga. 600, 45 S. E.490, 98 Am. St. Rep. 133, the Supreme Court said:
But the discussion in that case has no reference to negligence. The words in the act, "as near as practicable, " follow and qualify the words "time, place, and extent of such injury, " but they precede and do not qualify the words "the negligence which caused the same." If the Legislature had intended that a substantial compliance as to the negligence to be stated in the notice was sufficient, would not the clause in the statute, "as near as practicable, " have preceded the words "negligence which caused the same."
As we construe the petition, it does not broaden or change the allegations of negligence from that stated in the notice, and the only negligence alleged in the petition as the cause of the damage to plaintiff's property is the same as that stated in the notice, to wit, the small size of the sewer eye. Paragraph 6 of the petition is as follows:
"Petitioner says that the cause of said water running down into its said basement was due to the fact that the manhole or eye into said sewer from the street was entirely too small to carry off the flood of water into the sewer; it being too small permitted the water to run through and over the sidewalk and into the basement of petitioner's place of business, and the eye to the sewer was entirely too small to carry off into the sewer, as contemplated and as necessary to prevent the flooding of petitioner's basement."
The petition was amended in part as follows:
"Petitioner says that the direct effect of the construction of the sewer eye and drain complained of is to collect a large body of water at every hard rain, and to precipitate the water thus collected across the sidewalk and through the grating leading down into the basement of petitioner's property; that this result is caused by wholly insufficient sewer eye or inlet into the sewer from the surface, by negligent construction of said sewer eye and drainage, and this condition of the sewer eye has frequently been called to the attention of the defendant, and demand made that the defective condition be remedied by the city, but without effect."
If the sewer eye was too small, this was not the result of "negligent construction, " but was an error in the plan involving the exercise of judgment and discretion, for which the municipality would not be liable. Even in the petition as amended there is no act of negligence which is alleged to have caused the water to overflow into the basement of the building and damage petitioner, other than that the "sewer eye was entirely too small." According to the petition as amended, the small size of the sewer eye was the sine qua non of the damage. The petition, construed in connection with the notice and as a whole, and most strongly against the pleader, as it must be, shows that it is the small size of the sewer eye, and not any "negligent construction" thereof, that caused the damage.
Let it be borne in mind that this peti-tion is not one for negligently failing to keep a sewer in repair, nor for negligently allowing a sewer to become obstructed, but is one for constructing a sewer with two small an eye. But, were it otherwise, the Supreme Court in City Council of Augusta v. Cleveland, 148 Ga. 734, 98 S. E. 345, held that "the duty of a city to maintain its sewerage-drainage system in a good working and sanitary condition is a governmental function." In the opinion in that case the Supreme Court said at page 736 of 148 Ga., at page 346 of 98 S. E.:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial