Luis v. Orcutt Town Water Co.
204 Cal.App.2d 433, 1962 Cal. App. LEXIS 2261, 22 Cal. Rptr. 389 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A water company is not liable to a consumer for property losses resulting from a fire, even if the company fails to provide an adequate water supply, unless there is an express contract between the consumer and the company specifically for fire protection services.
Facts:
- Prior to 1940, Union Oil Company of California (Union) operated a private water system in the Town of Orcutt.
- In 1940, Union sold the portion of the system supplying the town to the Orcutt Town Water Company (Water Company), which Union allegedly owned and controlled.
- Union and Water Company entered into a contract where Union would supply water to Water Company, including from a separate high-pressure line in an "emergency when Water Company is prevented from or is unable to take water at its connection."
- Defendants advised local fire officials that in the event of a fire, they would open a high-pressure valve to increase water flow, but did not disclose the valve's location.
- This promise to provide extra water during a fire was communicated to other interested persons, including plaintiff Luis.
- On November 10, 1951, a fire broke out at Luis's mercantile store.
- Despite urgent demands, the defendants delayed opening the high-pressure valve for over an hour.
- As a result of the delay and lack of adequate water, Luis's building and its contents were completely destroyed by the fire.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Luis and plaintiff Great American Insurance Company sued defendants Union Oil Company and Orcutt Town Water Company in a California trial court.
- The trial court sustained the defendants' demurrer to the plaintiffs' second amended complaint without leave to amend.
- A judgment was entered in favor of the defendants.
- Plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the District Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a water company be held liable in contract or tort for a consumer's fire losses caused by the company's failure to provide an adequate water supply, absent an express contract for fire protection services?
Opinions:
Majority - Balthis, J.
No. A water company is not liable for a consumer's fire losses absent an express contract for fire protection. The ordinary relationship between a water distributor and a consumer does not create a duty to furnish water for extinguishing fires. The court reasoned that liability for fire loss is not an incident of the normal water supply relationship and can only be created by an express private contract. The contract between Union and Water Company was for the general sale of water, not fire protection, and Luis was merely an incidental beneficiary with no right to sue on the contract. The contract's reference to 'emergency' clearly meant an emergency with the water connection, not an emergency like a fire. Furthermore, the defendants' gratuitous promise to open the valve created no tort liability because their failure to act was mere nonfeasance (the denial of a benefit), not misfeasance (the commission of a wrong that causes harm).
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the common law rule that insulates public utilities, particularly water companies, from tort and contract liability for fire damages absent an explicit agreement for fire protection. It solidifies the distinction between nonfeasance and misfeasance, holding that a failure to confer a benefit (nonfeasance), even when promised gratuitously, is not actionable in tort. The ruling places the burden of obtaining fire protection squarely on property owners through insurance, preventing water companies from becoming de facto insurers for all their customers, which would create a 'staggering' financial burden not contemplated in standard water rates.
