Hurdis Realty, Inc. v. Town of North Providence

• Decision Date: 14 February 1979
• Docket Number: No. 77-187-A,77-187-A
• Citation: 397 A.2d 896,121 R.I. 275
• Parties: HURDIS REALTY, INC. v. TOWN OF NORTH PROVIDENCE et al. ppeal.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 896

397 A.2d 896

121 R.I. 275

HURDIS REALTY, INC. v. TOWN OF NORTH PROVIDENCE et al.

No. 77-187-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Feb. 14, 1979.

[121 R.I. 280] John M. Booth, Providence, for plaintiff.

Anthony M. Gallone, Providence, for defendants.

OPINION

DORIS, Justice.

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Superior Court awarding the plaintiff money damages as a result of expenditures incurred when the plaintiff was forced to hire private parties to repair a blocked sewage line after town officials refused to make the repairs. After a nonjury trial the trial justice held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover under either an implied contract or tort cause of action. Because we believe that the plaintiff has properly made out a cause of action for recovery in quasi-contract, we affirm.

The facts are undisputed. The plaintiff, Hurdis Realty, Inc., is the owner of a building situated at the corner of Charles Street and Mineral Spring Avenue in North Providence. On or about June 18, 1973, Frank Hurdis, plaintiff's president, was informed that the sewage was not flowing properly from the building. After personally inspecting the site, Hurdis employed a plumber who determined that the cause of the blockage was located past plaintiff's property line, somewhere under Mineral Spring Avenue. Hurdis proceeded to the North Providence Town Hall where he requested that the town council president remedy the problem. The latter replied that before he could order any repair work, he required a report from the sewer superintendent. Accordingly, the superintendent went to the site, removed a sewer cover on Mineral Spring Avenue some one hundred feet down from plaintiff's property, peered in, and observed that the sewer main was flowing freely. He therefore stated that there was nothing he could do. Hurdis again contacted the town council president and reiterated his request that the blockage be removed. The president again refused, relying upon the sewer superintendent's report.

Having met with no success by proceeding through the "proper channels," and faced with a problem requiring immediate attention, Hurdis hired a private sewer contractor to remove the blockage. A permit to excavate a portion of Mineral Spring Avenue was obtained from the appropriate state authorities, and municipal police officers were hired to direct traffic while the repair work was underway. The contractor dug down some fourteen feet in the middle of the street and located the source of the blockage. A chimney pipe, which contains a "Y" connection enabling the lateral sewer lines of property owners to connect with the main sewer line below, was damaged, thereby preventing sewage from flowing into the main sewer line. The private contractor repaired the damaged pipe.

To obtain the necessary repairs, plaintiff was required to spend $4,773.29. On March 1, 1974, plaintiff presented its claim for reimbursement to the town council, as required by G.L.1956 (1970 Reenactment) § 45-15-5. When the claim was not satisfied, it filed suit in Superior Court on July 25, 1974. Following a nonjury trial, the trial justice found that plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount it had spent for the repair work, plus interest. The defendant raises two issues on appeal. First, it argues that plaintiff's right to recover, if it has this right at all, sounds in tort and consequently plaintiff's claim is barred by the then applicable one-year statute of limitations. See G.L.1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 9-1-25. Second, it contends that plaintiff failed to make out a cause of action in implied contract.

Although plaintiff's complaint did not specify whether it was proceeding on a tort or contract theory, the trial justice clearly found for plaintiff on the basis of an implied-in-law contract. Unlike an express or implied-in-fact contract for which mutual assent is necessary, in an implied-in-law or quasi-contract, liability is implied by the law and arises from the facts and circumstances irrespective of any agreement or presumed intention. In such a case the intent of the parties is not dispositive. As we stated in Bailey v. West, 105 R.I. 61, 249 A.2d 414 (1969):

" 'In quasi contracts the obligation arises, not from consent of the parties, as in the case of contracts, express or implied in fact, but from the law of natural immutable justice and equity. * * * Where a case shows...