finding that facts "fall squarely within" third-party beneficiary rule where Water Board was contractually obligated to municipality to maintain adequate water supply for proper functioning of fire hydrants
How later courts described this case
- finding that facts "fall squarely within" third-party beneficiary rule where Water Board was contractually obligated to municipality to maintain adequate water supply for proper functioning of fire hydrants
- recognizing that, in order to establish a negligent-maintenance claim in Alabama, the plaintiff must prove the existence of a duty owed by the defendant
- though promisee enjoys some degree of direct benefit from the contract, most direct benefit inures to third-party beneficiaries
- "[Wjhere one party to a contract assumes a duty to another party tp that contract, and it is foreseeable that injury to a third party — not a party to the contract — may occur upon a breach of that duty, the promissor owes that duly to all those within the- foreseeable area of risk.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*614 MERRILL, Justice
(dissenting).
My reasons for dissenting are the same as those appearing in my dissent in Jackson v. City of Florence, 294 Ala. 592 , 320 So.2d 68 .
MADDOX, J., concurs.