Jenney v. City of Brooklyn

• Decision Date: 15 April 1890
• Citation: 24 N.E. 274,120 N.Y. 164
• Parties: JENNEY et al. v. CITY OF BROOKLYN.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

120 N.Y. 164

24 N.E. 274

JENNEY et al.

v.CITY OF BROOKLYN.

Court of Appeals of New York,

Second Division.

April 15, 1890.

Appeal from a judgment of the general term of the supreme court, second department, affirming a judgment of the circuit in favor of the plaintiff.

Between 3 and 4 o'clock on the morning of June 16, 1885, a watchman in the employ of the plaintiffs found that the fire hydrant between the curb-stone and the wall of the plaintiffs' works had in some manner been removed, and in its place a stream of water was gushing up, which in a short time overflowed plaintiffs' oilworks, to their damage in about the sum of $1,400. The plaintiffs proved that the hydrant was found detached from the main water pipe, the extent of the damage by water, which by reason thereof was permitted to flow over and upon their property, and rested. The defendant called a number of witnesses, who testified, in effect, that the hydrant had been erected and constructed about seven months before the injury to the plaintiffs; that they had taken part in the erection and construction; that the method of doing the work was the best known to them; that the materials used were new and good; and that when completed it was a good job. The plaintiffs did not offer any evidence in rebuttal. The court denied defendant's motion for a nonsuit at the close of the testimony, and submitted to the jury for their determination whether the hydrant was faultily constructed.

Almet F. Jenks, for appellant.

Homer A. Nelson, for respondents.

PARKER, J., ( after stating the facts as above.)

In the construction of the water main and fire hydrant, the defendant did that which it lawfully might. No contractual relations existed between it and the plaintiffs, and, in the construction and maintenance of water-works, mains, and hydrants for the benefit of the municipality, it owed to the plaintiffs no other or further duty than to the other residents of the city. A municipal corporation does not insure the citizen against damage from works of its construction. Its obligation and duty in such respect is measured by the exercise of reasonable care and vigilance. Liability can only be predicated upon its neglect or misconduct. McCarthy v. Syracuse, 46 N. Y. 194;Smith v. Mayor, 66 N. Y. 295;Ring v. Cohoes, 77 N. Y. 83;Hunt v. Mayor, etc., 109 N. Y. 134, 16 N. E. Rep. 320. Proof that the plaintiffs sustained damage by the flooding of their works with water from defendant's mains could...