Grace & Co. v. City of Los Angeles
168 F. Supp. 344 (1958)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipality is not negligent for failing to inspect its underground water pipes, even in known corrosive soil, if such inspection is prohibitively expensive and economically unfeasible. A defendant is only required to take reasonable precautions, and liability for damage caused by a bursting water pipe requires a showing of negligence, not strict liability.
Facts:
- The City of Los Angeles and Outer Harbor Dock and Wharf Co. operated a shed at Berth 59 in the Los Angeles Harbor.
- Grace & Co. (plaintiff) owned approximately 1,960 bags of coffee stored in the defendants' shed.
- Defendants maintained an 8-inch cast-iron water pipe, installed approximately 40 years prior, which ran adjacent to and into the shed.
- Subsequent to the pipe's installation, the City of Los Angeles became aware that the soil in the harbor area was highly corrosive.
- The City adopted a policy, based on economic considerations, to not inspect or replace water pipelines until a leak was discovered on the surface.
- A section of the pipe burst due to graphitic corrosion, flooding the shed and damaging the plaintiff's coffee.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, owner of the damaged coffee, filed a lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles and Outer Harbor Dock and Wharf Co. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, a federal trial court.
- The complaint alleged two theories for recovery: absolute liability and negligence.
- The case proceeded to a bench trial before the district court judge.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a city negligent for adopting a policy of not inspecting its forty-year-old underground water pipes and only repairing them upon discovery of a leak, even when it knows the pipes are located in corrosive soil but inspection is economically unfeasible?
Opinions:
Majority - Westover, District Judge
No. A city is not negligent for failing to inspect a forty-year-old underground water pipe where inspection would be prohibitively expensive and economically unfeasible. The court first addressed the plaintiff's claim of absolute liability under the doctrine of Rylands v. Fletcher, concluding that California law does not apply this doctrine to cases involving bursting water pipes; liability in such cases requires proof of negligence. Turning to the negligence claim, the court found that the plaintiff's entire case rested on the defendants' failure to inspect the pipe over a forty-year period. The court determined that any meaningful inspection would require excavating the entire pipe, which was ten feet underground and beneath a concrete platform. This process would be prohibitively expensive, economically unfeasible, and could potentially cause more damage to the pipe. The court found that the city's policy of repairing leaks as they occur, rather than engaging in preventative inspection, was a reasonable approach given the economic burden and was consistent with the policies of other municipalities. Because a defendant is only required to take reasonable precautions, the city's failure to inspect under these circumstances did not constitute negligence.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle that the standard of care in negligence is one of reasonableness, which incorporates a cost-benefit analysis. The decision establishes that a defendant's failure to take preventative measures may be excused if the burden of doing so is prohibitively high compared to the risk of harm. For government entities managing vast public infrastructure, this ruling provides a significant defense against negligence claims by affirming that resource-driven policies, such as repairing infrastructure only upon failure, can be deemed reasonable. This precedent influences how courts evaluate negligence in cases involving aging infrastructure, requiring plaintiffs to show not only that a risk existed but also that a defendant failed to take reasonable and economically feasible steps to mitigate it.
Unlock the full brief for Grace & Co. v. City of Los Angeles