Lubin v. City of Iowa City
1964 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 825, 257 Iowa 383, 131 N.W.2d 765 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party that operates a system, such as a water main, and intentionally allows its components to remain in service without inspection until they inevitably fail, is strictly liable for the damage that results from such a failure.
Facts:
- Lubin owned and operated a store in Iowa City.
- The City of Iowa City operated a municipal water system, which is a proprietary activity.
- A water main, which was part of the city's system, was located underground near Lubin's store.
- The specific pipe that broke had been in the ground for approximately 80 years, with an estimated lifespan of 100 years.
- The city's established practice was to not inspect or maintain its underground water mains, but to leave them in place until a break occurred.
- The city's water main broke.
- Water from the broken main flooded the basement of Lubin's store.
- The flooding caused substantial damage to merchandise stored in the basement.
Procedural Posture:
- Lubin (plaintiffs) sued the City of Iowa City (defendant) in an Iowa trial court for damages.
- The complaint included counts of strict liability, res ipsa loquitur, and specific negligence.
- The trial court refused to submit the strict liability theory to the jury, allowing only the negligence-based claims to proceed.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant city on the negligence claims.
- Lubin filed a motion for a new trial.
- The trial court granted the motion for a new trial, stating that the verdict failed to do substantial justice.
- The City of Iowa City (appellant) appealed the trial court's order granting a new trial to the Supreme Court of Iowa, with Lubin as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a city engaged in the proprietary activity of supplying water face strict liability for damages caused by a broken water main when its operational practice is to leave mains underground without inspection or maintenance until a break occurs?
Opinions:
Majority - Stuart, J.
Yes. A city that deliberately plans to leave a water main underground beyond inspection until a break occurs is strictly liable for the resulting damages. It is neither just nor reasonable for the city to engage in a proprietary activity knowing a break will eventually occur and then escape liability. The risks from such a method of operation should be borne by the water supplier, who is in a position to spread the cost among the consumers who benefit from the savings in inspection and maintenance costs. When the expected and inevitable break occurs, the enterprise should bear the loss, not the unfortunate individual whose property is damaged without any fault of their own. This holding aligns with the principles of Fletcher v. Rylands, trespass, nuisance, and liability for extrahazardous activities, and reflects the modern trend that a hazardous enterprise must pay its own way.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant adoption of strict liability for a common municipal function, moving beyond traditional negligence standards for public utilities in Iowa. The court's reasoning shifts the focus from the city's specific conduct at the time of the break to its overall operational policy of calculated risk. By imposing strict liability, the court establishes a new precedent that treats the cost of inevitable system failures as a cost of doing business, which should be socialized among all beneficiaries (ratepayers) rather than being borne by a single, unfortunate victim. This case will influence future litigation involving infrastructure failures, potentially extending strict liability to other utilities that adopt a 'run-to-failure' maintenance approach.
