Home >> Bouvier's Law Dictionary >> Safe to Smuggling >> Sewer

Sewer

city, gas, co, construction, liable, sewers, private, mass and authority

SEWER. A subterranean passage for drainage, usually constructed and maintain ed by a corporation.

a trench artificially made for the purpose of carrying water into the sea, river, or some other place of reception. Crabb, R. P. s. 118; Bennett v. New Bedford, 110 Mass. 433.

The authority to construct public sewers is not incident to corporate poWers, if ample provision is made by general statutes ; Bul ger v. Eden, 82 Me. 352, 19 Atl. 829, 9 L. R. A. 205.

The sewers of a City are its private proper ty, and the citizens are alone interested there in; the general public of the state at large have no interest in them, and therefore the City may be liable for negligence in their con struction ; Donahoe v. Kansas City, 136 Mo. 657, 38 S. W. 571. The construction of a sewer is a private enterprise, for the negligent control of which the city will be liable, under a charter providing for a revenue from its use; Ostrander v. Lansing, 111 Mich. 693, 70 it W. 332.

Merely granting a city authority by its charter sewers to carry off ref use to a river does•not make such use of the sewers a governmental act, freeing the city from personal liability for Injuries therefrom; Platt V. Waterbury,' 72 •Conn. 531, 45 Atl. 154, 48 L. R. A. 691, 77 Am. Rep. 335. Legislative authority to a municipality to open and con struct a sewer in a public street does not ex empt the municipality from the duty of exer cising due care in performing the work; Koontz v. District of Columbia, 24 App. D. C. 59 ; but a city is held not liable for damages resulting from its negligent and defective construction of a sluice for drainage, which It undeetoOk without any authority, and not in the execution• of any power -conferred on it, since, to create such liability, the act must have been within the scope of Its corporate powers as prescribed by its charter; Betham v. Philadelphia, 196 Pa. 302, 46 Atl. 448.

Damages for the negligent construction of a, sewer must be confined to actual, not pros pective, damages at the time of suit; Nash ville v. Comar, 88 Tenn. 415, 12 S. W. 1027, 7 L. R. A. 465. , A municipal corporation owes to the public a duty in the construction of its sewers not to injure the mains or other under-ground conveniences and is responsible to any one in-, jured in consequence of a, breach of that duty, although the performance of it had been dele gated to an independent contractor; [1896] 1' Q. B. 335, where it was held that when a gas main was broken by the negligence of the contractors, and an explosion took place in a private house because of the escape of the gas from the ,broken main, the municipality was liable, the damages not being too remote.

Generally a city will be enjoined from us ing or building a sewer so as to create a: nui sance; Dierks v, Com'rs. of Highways, 142

197, 31 N. E. 496; Stoddard v. Saratoga Springs, 127 N. Y. 261, 27 N. E. 1030; a li cense for discharge of sewage draining a par ticular district will not authorize the dis charge from a larger one; New York Cent. & H. R. Co. v. Rochester, 127 N. Y. 591, 28 N. E. 416. Authority to carry a sewer under a high way does not grant power to discharge it in a river at a place that destroys navigation or the use of a dock ; Breed v. Lynn, 126 Mass. 367; or into a private canal ; Boston Rolling Mills v. Cambridge, 117 Mass. 396.

A' borough •has a right to make a sewer which empties into a natural stream, though it increased the flowage; Munn v. Pittsburgh, 40 Pa. 364; and may permit citizens to lay a drain pipe into it to carry off their surplus water; Wood v. McGrath, 150.Pa. 451, 24 Atl. 682, 16 L. R. A. 715.

A drain passing through private, ground, but receiving the drainage of more than one building, is held to be a sewer; [1894] 1 Q. B. 233. • One 'who permits noxious vapors, gases, oils, etc., to escape into a sewer Is usually held liable for injuries resulting therefrom; Brady v. Steel & Spring Co., 102 Mich. 277,-60 N. W. 687, 26 L. R. A. 175 (crude oil); Fuchs v. St. Louis, 133 Mo. 168, W. 115, 34 S. W. 508, 34 L. R. A. 118 (crude petroleum); Richmond v. Gay's Adm'x., 103 Va. 320, 49 S. E. 482 (gas); even though a, contributing cause of the injury might be found in the sewer gas; Hunt v. Gaslight. Co., 8 Allen (Mass.) 169, 85 Am.. Dee. 697. Where gas es caped through a sewer, owing to the negli gence the city in building it, and 'injured plants in a greenhouse, the gas company was held liable for the loSs ; Butcher v. Gas Co., 12 R. I. 149, 34 Am. Rep. 626.

' If a gas comPany knows or ought to know of the construction of a sewer near to its mains, it is its duty to guard against the damage likely to be sustained thereby, if the injury to such mains is the natural and prob able consequence of the construction of the sewer; Koelsch v. Philadelphia Co., 152 Pa. 355, 25 Atl. 522, 18 L. R. A. 759, 34 Am. St. Rep. 653.

A permit to turn clear water, into a sewer Is not equivalent to a license to turn steam into it; Walker Ice Co. v. Steel & Wire Co., 185 Mass. 463, 70 N. E. 937.

The construction of sewers does not impose an additional burden on a highway; West v. Bancroft, 32 Vt. 367; Cone v. Hartford, 28 Conn. 363; Turner v. Dartmouth, 13 Allen (Mass.) 291; but in Pennsylvania consent of abutting owners is required, where they are constructed by private corporations; Mc Devitt v. Gas Co., 160 Pa. 372, 28 AU. 948. See POLLUTION.