City owes no duty to provide enough water to suppress fire

(Continued - Page 2)

The City responded that it is not a water company, because the statute does not regulate municipal corporations. The Supreme Court, citing the statute’s plain language, disagreed. The Court then considered whether the City therefore owed a legal duty to the Fisks. The Court noted that if a statute imposes a duty on municipalities for the general public welfare rather than to an identifiable class of persons, there is no legal duty to an individual unless a specific exception applies. No exception applied to the City.

Here, the City argued that the statute imposed duties only on water companies that provide service “for hire.” The Court agreed that the statute’s language so provided. The Court noted, “The legislature intended to regulate water systems engaged in the marketplace with consumers. Water provided for fire suppression is normally not provided for hire.” The Court held that the statute does not explicitly create a duty of the City to provide water for fire suppression and thus owed no duty to the Fisks. The Court found nothing in the legislative intent of the statute that suggested that the legislature meant to create a new cause of action for failure to provide water for fire suppression.

The Court looked at cases from appellate courts of other states that involved similar facts, including cases from Alaska, California, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, and Texas. Most states’ appellate courts held that a municipality owes no such duty. The Court noted that any other decision “could lead to catastrophic liability for a municipality.”

The Court concluded, “A municipal water company does not owe a duty to those whose fire damage is increased because of insufficient water for fire suppression purposes.”