Veach v. City of Phoenix
102 Ariz. 195, 427 P.2d 335 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a municipality assumes the responsibility of furnishing water for fire protection, it has a duty to provide each property owner with such reasonable protection as others in similar areas are accorded, and its discretion in providing such services cannot be arbitrary.
Facts:
- The City of Phoenix operated a municipal water distribution system for the benefit of its inhabitants.
- Plaintiffs owned and operated a market located within the City of Phoenix.
- Prior to January 23, 1962, Plaintiffs requested that the City of Phoenix install a fire hydrant near their market for fire protection.
- The City of Phoenix did not install the requested fire hydrant.
- On January 23, 1962, a fire broke out in the Plaintiffs' market.
- There was no available water supply to fight the fire, resulting in the complete destruction of the market.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs sued the City of Phoenix in a state trial court to recover damages for their property destroyed by fire.
- The City of Phoenix filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
- The trial court granted the City's motion to dismiss, finding the City was operating in a governmental capacity and had no duty to supply water for fire protection.
- The trial court entered a final judgment in favor of the City of Phoenix.
- Plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Arizona.
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 municipality that operates a public water system have a legal duty to provide water for fire protection to a property owner who has requested it, thereby exposing the municipality to liability for damages if it negligently fails to do so?
Opinions:
Majority - Udall, Justice
Yes. When a municipality assumes the responsibility of furnishing fire protection, it has the duty of giving each person or property owner such reasonable protection as others within a similar area are accorded under like circumstances. The court reasoned that since Arizona abolished the doctrine of governmental immunity in Stone v. Arizona Highway Commission, the distinction between governmental and proprietary functions is no longer relevant to municipal tort liability. The central question is one of legal duty. A city operating a water system acts as a public service corporation, which has a legal obligation to render adequate service impartially and without discrimination to all members of the public within its scope of operation. While a municipality has no absolute duty to provide water for fire protection, once it undertakes this responsibility, it cannot arbitrarily deny that service to some while providing it to others in similar situations. The city retains discretion, based on need and economic factors, to determine what constitutes reasonable protection, but the reasonableness of that discretion is a question of fact for a jury.
Analysis:
This decision significantly altered municipal tort law in Arizona by extending liability to the provision of fire protection services. By setting aside the governmental immunity defense, the court re-framed the issue as a breach of duty owed by a public service corporation to its customers. The ruling establishes that a city's discretion in allocating resources like fire hydrants is not absolute and is subject to a standard of reasonableness and non-discrimination. This creates a potential for liability where a plaintiff can demonstrate that their property was arbitrarily denied a level of protection afforded to other, similar areas, shifting the inquiry from whether a city can be sued to whether its actions were reasonable.
Unlock the full brief for Veach v. City of Phoenix