holding that, even if the municipal water company had no duty to provide fire hydrants in the first place, once the hydrants were installed, the water company assumed an imperative duty to see that reasonable care was exercised in the maintenance and repair of the hydrants
How later courts described this case
- holding that, even if the municipal water company had no duty to provide fire hydrants in the first place, once the hydrants were installed, the water company assumed an imperative duty to see that reasonable care was exercised in the maintenance and repair of the hydrants
- water company's liability in tort based on failure to comply with regulation mandating "adequate and safe service"
- under contract with municipality to supply water hydrants, water company owed duty to homeowner whose house caught fire
- duty extends to those "falling within the foreseeable orbit of risk of harm."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts:
I concur in the result because the complaint alleges negligence in the failure to inspect the hydrants and to replace or repair inoperative valves and in allowing the water in the hydrants to freeze.
Mr. Justice Eagen joins in this opinion.