Louisville Water Co. v. Lally

• Decision Date: 08 February 1916
• Citation: 182 S.W. 186,168 Ky. 348
• Parties: LOUISVILLE WATER CO. v. LALLY.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

182 S.W. 186

168 Ky. 348

LOUISVILLE WATER CO. v. LALLY.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

February 8, 1916

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Common Pleas Branch Fourth Division.

Action by H. E. Lally against the Louisville Water Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

A. J Carroll, of Louisville, for appellant.

O'Neal & O'Neal and C. H. Searcy, all of Louisville, for appellee.

CLARKE J.

Appellee lived at 225 Shawnee Drive, Louisville, Ky. on the 28th of July, 1914, and owned the property. About 5 o'clock in the afternoon he, his wife, and three children were leaving the house to spend the evening with his brother, when through one of the children wanting a drink, it was found the water had been turned off from his house, and none could be drawn from the faucets. They left their home and returned about half past 10 o'clock that evening, when they discovered that the water from the faucet at the washstand in the bathroom on the second floor had overflowed the basin and flooded a considerable portion of the house, damaging the walls, floors, and furnishings.

Appellee instituted this action against appellant, and recovered a judgment for $694 for the damage sustained by reason of the flooding of his house, and appellant, having been denied a new trial, is appealing.

Appellee's petition as amended alleges that the flooding of his house was caused by the gross negligence and carelessness of appellant in suddenly turning on and into the pipes of his home a large and tremendous volume of water of extreme velocity, in such way and manner as to forcibly cause same to run through the faucet and piping in said residence, thereby causing and permitting said water to flood the premises.

The evidence shows that the water was turned back into the pipes supplying appellee's house and other houses in the neighborhood within a short time after he left his home. The only evidence that can be construed to indicate that there was any negligence in the way in which the water was turned on again into these pipes by appellant is given by two ladies living in the same square with appellee, who testify that when the water was turned on upon this occasion the pipes and faucets in their homes were caused to shake and to make such an unusually loud noise as to frighten them. None of the pipes or faucets in any of these residences were broken or bursted, or damaged in any way. Appellee testifies that the faucet from which the damaging water flowed was in perfect condition, both before and after the accident; that no pipe or fixture or fastening in his home...