Opinion

Coates v. District of Columbia

  • 42 App. D.C. 194
  • 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2254
Court
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Filed
Apr 6, 1914
Status
Published
Author
Shepard
On the bench
Shepard
Cited by
3 cases
Authority
More cited than 69.7%

The opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The learned trial justice committed no error in sustaining the demurrer. He was guided by the rule which has been pronounced in previous decisions of this court. Brown v. District of Columbia, 29 App. D. C. 273, 282, 25 L.R.A. (N.S.) 98; District of Columbia v. Tyrrell, 41 App. D. C. 463.

In those cases—the first relating to defective conditions in a fire-engine house, and the second to the escape of gas in a public-school building—the distinction was noted between the two kinds of powers and duties with which municipal corporations are charged; the one merely municipal for special local purposes and benefits; the other of a public or governmental character for the general public welfare. Tor negligence in the performance of the former there is liability; for negligence of agents in the performance of the latter there is no liability. The subject is discussed at length and many supporting authorities cited.

There is no occasion for further discussion of the general question.

Por a stronger reason, if anything, the duties imposed upon the health department of the District are to be considered public and governmental in their nature; and by the great weight of authority municipal corporations are not liable in damages for the negligent acts of the employees of such a department in the performance of their duties. 4 Dill. Mun. Corp. 5th ed. § 1642; Bryant v. St. Paul, 33 Minn. 289 , 53 Am. Rep. 31 , 23 N. W. 220 ; Mitchell v. Rockland, 52 Mo. 118, 121 ; Lynde v. Rockland, 66 Me. 309, 315 ; Ogg v. Lansing, 35 Iowa, 495, 498 , 14 Am. Rep. 499 ; Louisa County v. Yancey, 109 Va. 229, 236 , 63 S. E. 452 ; Ulrich v. St. Louis, 112 Mo. 138, 143 , 34 Am. St. Rep. 372 , 20 S. W. 466 .

*198 , There is, perhaps, another ground upon which the demurrer might be, sustained without regard to the foregoing; but, as it has not been presented or argued, we will merely suggest the point without deciding it. The dairy where the acts complained • of were committed is in the State of Maryland.

Officers of the District of Columbia are without power beyond its boundaries; and, if they undertake to exercise it, the District could not be held liable for their acts. We are advised of no act of Congress that attempts even to authorize their exercise of the power of disinfection of a dairy beyond the boundary; even .if .such power could be conferred.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs. Affirmed.

For denial of writ of error, see post, p. 307.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.