Young v. City of Chicopee
72 N.E. 63, 186 Mass. 518, 1904 Mass. LEXIS 1006 (1904)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a construction contract requires materials to be incorporated into an existing structure, the risk of loss for materials brought to the job site but not yet integrated into the structure remains with the contractor, even if the structure is destroyed without fault.
Facts:
- Young (the plaintiff) and Chicopee (the defendant) entered into a written contract for Young to repair a wooden bridge forming part of a highway across the Connecticut River.
- The contract specified that Young would replace decayed timber and woodwork, ensuring the bridge was in a “complete and substantial condition,” and Young's compensation was based on the amount of new lumber used after measurements and certification.
- A condition of the contract required Young to bring material for at least one half of the contemplated repairs “upon the job” before work commenced to ensure rapid progress.
- Young complied with this condition, distributing lumber for the repairs “all along the bridge” and upon the river banks.
- While the repair work was in progress, the bridge was totally destroyed by fire without the fault of either Young or Chicopee.
- Some of the lumber that Young had brought to the job site but had not yet been used or wrought into the bridge was destroyed in the fire.
Procedural Posture:
- Young (the plaintiff) initiated an action to recover for work and materials furnished under a written contract to repair a bridge.
- At trial, Chicopee (the defendant) did not dispute its liability to pay for the work done upon and materials actually wrought into the structure at the time of the fire.
- The trial court likely rendered a verdict that included damages for the lumber brought to the site but not yet used, as the Supreme Judicial Court's opinion states that the defendant's exceptions (appeal points) were sustained and the verdict set aside.
- The case came before the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts on the defendant's exceptions (appeal) regarding its liability for the unused lumber destroyed in the fire.
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 property owner bear the risk of loss for materials brought onto a construction site but not yet incorporated into the structure when the entire structure is destroyed without the fault of either party?
Opinions:
Majority - Hammond, J.
No, a property owner does not bear the risk of loss for materials brought onto a construction site but not yet incorporated into the structure when the entire structure is destroyed without the fault of either party. The court reasoned that title to the lumber, which had not yet been used, remained with the plaintiff (contractor) and had not been delivered to the defendant (owner). The defendant had no care or control over these unused materials, and they would not have become the defendant’s property until “wrought into the bridge.” The contract’s stipulation for compensation based on lumber “wrought into the bridge” reinforced that the benefit to the defendant, and thus the transfer of risk, occurred only upon incorporation. The court applied the principle that an owner’s liability for partial performance, when a structure is destroyed, is limited to the work and materials that have become so identified with the structure that, but for its destruction, they would have 'enured to him as contemplated by the contract.' Since the unused lumber had not reached this stage, the risk of its loss remained with the plaintiff. The requirement to bring materials “upon the job” was merely to ensure rapid progress, not to transfer title or risk.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the allocation of risk in construction contracts, particularly when an existing structure is destroyed before completion of work. It establishes that the risk of loss for materials brought to a site, but not yet integrated into the owner's property, remains with the contractor. This principle compels contractors to secure or insure their materials at a job site until they are formally incorporated, influencing practices in inventory management and risk assessment. The 'enurement' principle is critical for determining when title and beneficial interest in materials effectively transfer from contractor to owner.
