Saunders v. City of Ft. Madison

• Decision Date: 13 April 1900
• Citation: 82 N.W. 428,111 Iowa 102
• Parties: LAURA SAUNDERS, Appellant, v. THE CITY OF FORT MADIISON
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

82 N.W. 428

111 Iowa 102

LAURA SAUNDERS, Appellant, v. THE CITY OF FORT MADIISON

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

April 13, 1900

Appeal from Keokuk Superior Court.--HON. RICE H. BELL, Judge.

ACTION at law for damages due, as is alleged, to defendant's negligence in operating or caring for its fire apparatus. A demurer to the petition was sustained, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

T. B Snyder and B. J. Wellman for appellant.

E. C Weber and Watson & Weber for appellee.

OPINION

DEEMER, J.

The petition alleges, in substance, that while plaintiff was driving along and over one of the streets in defendant city and when opposite a fire station, its agents and servants, while in the line of their employment, and handling the fire apparatus of the city, negligently, carelessly, and wantonly caused the bell attached to said apparatus to be rung, thus frightening the horse that plaintiff was driving, causing him to run away and throw plaintiff from the vehicle in which she was riding, resulting in serious injury to her person; that these agents and servants, after noticing that plaintiff's horse had become frightened, continued to ring the bell, and refused to desist, although requested by plaintiff to do so. Defendant's demurrer was on the grounds that it is not liable for the action of its agents, servants, or firemen who have control of the fire apparatus, and that in no event is it liable for the willful and malicious acts of its agents or servants while handling fire apparatus. This demurrer was sustained, and the question for solution is, is defendant liable for the negligent or careless acts of its agents and servants acting in the line of their duty in caring for the fire apparatus? The doctrine of respondeat superior is not applicable to the acts or negligence of all agents and servants of a municipal corporation. Such a corporation, no doubt, has power to purchase and own fire apparatus, and may in some instances appoint the agents who are to manage and care for the same; but it is not, as a general rule, liable for the negligence or carelessness of such agents; for the reason that the service performed is one in which it has no particular interest, and from which it derives no special benefit in its corporate capacity. Such employes are not agents and servants of the city, but act as officers charged with a public service, for whose negligence no action will lie against the city. Where the powers conferred are governmental in nature, the city cannot be made liable for the execution thereof. Ogg v. City of Lansing, 35 Iowa 495; Calwell v. City of Boone, 51 Iowa 687, 2 N.W. 614. In the absence of express statute, municipal corporations are no more liable to actions for injuries occasioned by reason of negligence in using or keeping in repair fire apparatus owned by them, than in the care of public buildings. Hafford v. City of New Bedford, 16 Gray 297; Eastman v. Meredith, 36 N.H. 284. In Burrill v. Augusta, 78 Me. 118 (3 A. 177), it appeared that the officers of the fire department carelessly and negligently left a fire engine standing within the limits of a public street in the defendant city, and, while so standing, drew the fire, and permitted the steam to escape with great noise, whereby plaintiff's horse was frightened and ran away, and plaintiff was thrown to...