Judd v. City of Hartford

• Decision Date: 27 October 1899
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: JUDD et al. v. CITY OF HARTFORD.

44 A. 510

72 Conn. 350

JUDD et al.

v. CITY OF HARTFORD.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Oct. 27, 1899.

Appeal from superior court, Hartford county; John M. Thayer, Judge.

Action by Henry C. Judd and another against the city of Hartford to recover damages for injuries sustained by the overflow of a sewer. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The finding stated the following facts: The plaintiffs owned a store on High street, in Hartford. The defendant city in 1873 laid a sewer in the street, with which the store was connected, and which was adequate to drain the area that it was built to drain. The owners of the store were assessed for benefits, and paid the assessment. On July 29, 1897, the city was engaged in building an intercepting sewer to divert the sewage from the High street sewer and other sewers from an outlet theretofore used into Park river, and send it into the Connecticut river. For this purpose the city had cut off the High street sewer 100 feet below the plaintiffs' store, and constructed a manhole there, with a 12-inch pipe at the bottom, running into the intercepting sewer, and a 24-inch brick storm-water sewer at the top, running under High street, in the line of the old sewer to the Park river. A stone was set as a dam in the lower part of this storm-water sewer, to keep all sewage out of it, leaving only the storm water to flow over the dam. These sewer connections on High street were completed by July 1st, and were adequate to the purposes for which they were designed. The city's agents had previously used a wooden "center" in constructing the 24-inch storm sewer, on which to turn the arch forming the upper half of said sewer at the point where it left the manhole. This center had a solid semicircular board head, measuring 24 inches across the base. After the arch was built, instead of removing the center, as should have been done, it was negligently left by the defendant's agents lying across the lower portion of the storm sewer, so as to obstruct the flow of water. A fortnight before July 29th the defendant's agents also blocked up the outlet from the manhole in the intercepting sewer with bags of sand, to prevent any sewage or water from flowing through it into another manhole situated below it, which they were then constructing. By these two obstructions the capacity of the outlet of the High street manhole near the plaintiffs' store was reduced to a quarter of the capacity of the sewer leading into this manhole. No notice of these obstructions was given to the plaintiffs. There was a severe rainstorm on July 29th, which filled the High street sewer, so that by reason of these obstructions the water and sewage were forced into the plaintiffs' store, doing serious damage. The defendant claimed that the storm was an act of God, for the consequences of which it could not be held liable; that leaving the center in the sewer was an error of judgment, for which it was not liable in damages; that the service performed by the defendant in the construction of said sewer was one in which the defendant had no particular interest, and from which it derived no special benefit, in its corporate capacity, and that negligence of the employes of the defendant in the construction of said sewer was not imputable to the defendant; that it was authorized to build sewers for the public when the public necessity required, and assess the expense upon properties specially benefited, and that no obligation rested upon the defendant to make the sewers and drains constructed under such authority sufficient and ample, and no obligation thereafter existed to keep the same free from defects and obstructions; that the contractors, employes, and appointees of the street department and public works are not the agents and servants of the city, charged with a public service, for whose negligence in the discharge of a governmental...