Miller v. City of St. Joseph, 25930
| Decision Date | 07 September 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 25930,25930 |
| Parties | Marvin L. MILLER, Appellant, v. CITY OF ST. JOSEPH, Missouri, a Municipal corp., Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Charles C. Shafer, Jr., and Howard Chamberlin, Kansas City, for appellant.
Ronald E. Taylor and Thomas R. Summers, St. Joseph, for respondent.
The issue is whether the City of St. Joseph, Missouri, may validly enter into an understanding, oral in nature, with industrial and residential groups for fire prevention and protection in those areas beyond the city limits.
Plaintiff is a resident voter and taxpayer of the City and is employed by it in its fire department. In his petition for injunction he prays that the City be restrained from fighting fires or handling any other emergencies beyond its limits which he says is in violation of Section 5.7 of its charter: 'The Fire Department shall be responsible for the protection of life and property within the City of St. Joseph, Missouri from fire * * *.' (Emphasis added.) Plaintiff further pleads that he and other fire department employees, over their remonstrance, have been required to go beyond the city limits to fight fires or handle other emergencies, or on refusal to do so they will lose their positions with the City; that such results in a loss of insurance protection; it could result in lawsuits being filed against him individually; and the City could be liable as a result of loss of its immunity, which could further result in greater taxes against plaintiff. Judgment was for respondent City in the trial court.
The essence of the City's answer and its position here is that the fighting of fires along the perimeter of the City, although outside the city limits, is necessary and expedient to promote and maintain the comfort, safety, welfare, commerce and industry of the City and its inhabitants. It derives the defense from Section 2.13(20) of its charter: 'POWERS (20) Do all things whatsoever necessary or expedient for promoting and maintaining the comfort, education, morals, safety, peace, government, health, welfare, trade, commerce, or industry of the City and its inhabitants.'
The City filed a motion to dismiss this appeal upon the ground that the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution of Missouri, Art. VI, Section 19(a), V.A.M.S., on October 5, 1971, rendered the prior decision of the court below moot. The constitutional amendment is: Plaintiff's position is that the adoption of this constitutional amendment does not render this case moot because the City has not by further action enacted any charter provision authorizing it to fight fires beyond its limits. He still claims that such is in violation of Section 5.7 above. The issue is still whether under present charter provisions the city may fight fires and handle other emergencies beyond its corporate boundaries, and that issue, as plaintiff contends, has not been rendered moot by the broadened provisions of the above constitutional amendment. The City's motion to dismiss this appeal is overruled.
Plaintiff had been a first-class fire fighter of the City for about 14 years, and was President of Local 77 of Fire Fighters International, Fire Fighters Association, representing about 145 members. He was assigned to the Tenth and Corby, Company No. 7. Eight years ago he made a complaint to the news media and the City Council as to being ordered to go outside the city limits, '* * * I felt that we were jeopardizing not only the men but the equipment and the taxpayers.' In summary, the reasons for plaintiff's fear of going outside the city limits are these: (1) the welfare of his men 'towards liability risk, knowing that we don't have the protection that we have within the corporate limits'; (2) the taxpayers are the ones paying firefighter salaries and should be protected. It was further plaintiff's position that in going outside the city limits to fight a fire, the citizens of the City were left without protection. He, himself, was fearful of personal liability because of loss of possible governmental immunity. The average number of calls outside the city limits had been 40 or 50 per year. The arrangement between the City and the stockyards district, which lies to the southwest of the city limits, is that of a gift of $17,500.00, according to plaintiff's understanding, and the outlying residential districts pay $50.00 per hour per call to the City from a 'pot' made up by residents.
For the City, its Mayor, W. J. Bennett, testified that the total budget of the City was a little over 7 million dollars, the real estate in its limits was assessed at $75,675,430.00, and the personal property had an assessed valuation of $37,342,680.00. The stockyards area has a total assessed valuation of $3,596,480.00, which, if it were all within the city limits, would bring in right around $75,000.00 in taxes, which would not all be used for fire protection if the area were in the city. The City would have other obligations such as streets, lights, police and fire protection, and snow removal. In addition to the annual payment to the City, each industry within the stockyards district which has a fire call makes a contribution to the Firemen's Pension Fund of $50.00. There is no written contract between the City and the stockyards association whereby it pays for fire protection to the City. There is a contribution of $17,500.00 per annum in advance. The type of buildings in the stockyards district is industrial, the newer ones being made of concrete, but the older ones, Swift and Armour, are wooden and brick. Fire protection is also provided areas to the east and northeast of the City--Deer Park, Hurst, East Hills, a few on East Stonecrest, Mynor Manor north and south, and the Maxwell Height area north of the Industrial City area.
Don Spaulding, Division President of the United Stockyards...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collins v. Vernon
...this conclusion necessarily arises from facts sufficiently pleaded is not material.' l.c. 675 (emphasis added) In Miller v. City of St. Joseph, 485 S.W.2d 688 (Mo.App.1972), a fireman, a citizen and taxpayer of the City, brought an action to enjoin the City from entering into oral agreement......
-
Moseley v. City of Mountain Grove, 9367
...County v. Morgan, 163 Mo. 661, 64 S.W. 119; Palmer et al. v. Marshall et al., Mo.App., 24 S.W.2d 229.' In Miller v. City of St. Joseph, 485 S.W.2d 688, 692(4) (Mo.App.1972) the following language appears: 'Even assuming that there was a valid basis for holding that the City exceeded its cha......
-
Casterline v. Stuerman, 39897
...individual capacities can take no benefit from it. The purpose of the statute is to protect the county. Miller v. City of St. Joseph, 485 S.W.2d 688, 692(3) (Mo.App.1972); State ex rel. Walton v. Miller, 297 S.W.2d 611, 614 (Mo.App.1956). It was not designed to insulate individuals from lia......