Taggart v. City of Fall River
| Decision Date | 25 February 1898 |
| Parties | TAGGART v. CITY OF FALL RIVER. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Jennings & Morton, for plaintiff.
L Elmer Wood, for defendant.
The general rule is that cities and towns are not liable to private actions for omissions or neglect in the performance of corporate duties imposed upon them by law, unless such action is given by statute. Pettingell v. City of Chelsea, 161 Mass. 368, 37 N.E. 380. There are some exceptions to this rule, and the one now chiefly relied on by the plaintiff is that a city or town is sometimes held liable to a private action when it derives a profit or advantage from the performance of the duty. The question before us is whether the present case falls within the general rule or the exception. It appeared that the city owned a large tract of unimproved land, and that the mayor and aldermen duly laid out Hood street as a public street or way. The city's land had been laid out into lots, and part had been sold, and other lots were advertised for sale by auction, and the advertisements stated that the work on Hood street would be continued to completion. It may be assumed that the completion of the street would increase the value of the land of the city, as well as of other owners in that vicinity. The plaintiff's intestate was one of a gang of laborers, who under the direction of the superintendent of streets and surveyor of highways of the defendant, were engaged in cutting Hood street through a bank of earth six or eight feet high, and he was caught by falling dirt. The plaintiff offered proof of negligence on the part of the defendant. By a city ordinance, there was a superintendent of streets, who was to act under the direction and control of the surveyor of highways. An order had been passed by the city government directing the superintendent of streets to work Hood street to grade. There was nothing further to show any interference by the city, by agents of its own, with the work of building the street. The work was done by the superintendent of streets and surveyor of highways. It does not distinctly appear whether the same person filled both of these positions, nor do we think this material. We infer from the plaintiff's brief that it was so. According to all the cases, there is no reason for holding the city responsible on the ground that it had taken the work out of the hands of the officer upon whom the duty of performing it was cast by law. Jensen v. City of Waltham, 166 Mass. 344, 44 N.E. 339; McManus v. Inhabitants of Weston, 164 Mass. 263, 41 N.E. 301; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial