Terrell v. Louisville Water Co.

• Decision Date: 07 November 1907
• Parties: TERRELL v. LOUISVILLE WATER CO. ET AL.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

105 S.W. 100

127 Ky. 77

TERRELL v. LOUISVILLE WATER CO. ET AL.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

November 7, 1907

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

"To be officially reported."

Action by George Terrell against the Louisville Water Company and the city of Louisville to recover damages resulting from negligence in failing to furnish adequate water supply for protection from fire. A verdict for defendants was directed by the court, and, plaintiff's motion for new trial being overruled, he appeals. Affirmed.

Bennett H. Young and Marion W. Ripy, for appellant.

Burnett & Burnett, for appellees.

HOBSON J.

George Terrell is the owner of a lot on the west side of Brook street, between Chestnut and Walnut, in the city of Louisville. On the lot there were two buildings. One was his dwelling house, and the other was a planing mill. On January 31, 1905, about midnight, the planing mill took fire and burned down. The fire was communicated from the planing mill to the dwelling house, and that also burned. He then brought this suit against the city of Louisville and the Louisville Water Company, charging that the loss of his property was due to their negligence in failing to furnish an adequate water supply for fire protection. At the conclusion of the evidence introduced by him, the court peremptorily instructed the jury to find for the defendants. This was done, and, his motion for a new trial having been overruled, he appeals.

The proof on the trial showed, in substance, that when the first alarm was turned in three engines came promptly to the fire. The first engine undertook to get water from a fire cistern at Brook and Water streets, but by reason of a defect in the valve it could get no water, or not enough to do any good. Some of the witnesses say that it got water for 10 minutes and that then the water ceased by reason of a defect in the valve. Another one of the engines undertook to get water from the fire cistern at Brook and Madison streets; but there was snow on the ground. The street car company had cleared its track, piling the snow at one side. By reason of this the firemen were unable for 10 minutes to locate the cistern top or to get into it. The third engine got water from a hydrant back of the buildings. Later other alarms were turned in, and a number of other engines came, which got water at other hydrants or cisterns further off from the property; but before this was done both of the buildings were substantially destroyed by fire.

There is nothing in the proof conducing to show that there was any lack of water in the mains of the water company. On the contrary, the witnesses who were introduced by the plaintiff testify that there was plenty of water...