Grace & Co. v. Los Angeles - 168 F. Supp. 344 (S.D. Cal. 1958)

Rule:

There could be no recovery for damage caused by a leak in a water pipe on adjoining premises in the absence of negligence on the part of the adjoining land owner in the original construction of the pipe or in discovering or repairing known defects.

Facts:

Defendant, City of Los Angeles, was and now is the owner of Berth 59, Los Angeles Harbor, and together with defendant, Outer Harbor Dock and Wharf Co., operated a certain steel and concrete shed at Berth 59 in that portion of Los Angeles County known as San Pedro. Plaintiff Grace & Co. was the owner of approximately 1,960 bags of coffee, which had been stored in the shed at Berth 59 after having been discharged by various vessels and was awaiting delivery to plaintiff. Defendants maintained in the public street adjacent to the shed at Berth 59 a certain 8-inch cast-iron water pipe-line. A lateral line leading into the shed from the 8-inch pipe burst, allowing a great quantity of water to escape from the pipe-line under high pressure, which water flooded the floor of the shed at Berth 59 and damaged Grace & Co.’s coffee. Grace & Co. alleged the defendants permitted the pipe to remain beneath the shed, although defendants knew or in the exercise of due care should have known that the pipe was in an ancient, weak, corroded and decaying condition, so that the pipe could not have reasonably been expected to contain water under high pressure. At the time the pipe was installed it was the best pipe available. At the time of installation defendants did not know of the corrosive nature of the soil, but subsequent to the installation the City, or some of its departments, became cognizant that the soil in the harbor area was highly corrosive. Based upon economic consideration, defendants established a policy of doing nothing about maintaining, repairing or replacing such water pipe-lines until a leak occurred and water was discovered on the surface of the ground. Grace & Co. contended defendants knew or should have known that the pipe was located in highly corrosive soil and, over the period of years involved, defendants should have conducted some sort of inspection to ascertain if the pipe had corroded in order to determine whether there was likelihood of the pipe bursting. Grace & Co. contended that failure to make an inspection for forty years was negligence. Grace & Co. contended defendants had knowledge that a break was imminent, for some months prior thereto there appeared to be a leakage in the system of more than 130.00 cubic feet of water per day. However, experts testified at the trial that in a graphitic corrosion break (which was the cause of the failure of the pipe) there is no gradual leakage, but that the surface of the pipe gives way all at once and thus allows water to spurt from the pipe. Notably, after defendants received notice of the break in the pipe, the line was repaired by cutting out an eight-or-ten-foot length of pipe and inserting therein a new piece of cast-iron pipe. Defendants' employees found in the pipe removed an opening, caused by graphitic corrosion, approximately the size of a human hand. They also discovered that within a short distance on either side of the opening the pipe was in sound condition, so that it could be continued in use. Grace & Co. invoked defendants’ liability for the damaged coffee.

Issue:

 Are defendants liable to Grace & Co. by virtue of negligence?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

Notably, Grace & Co. did not impute negligence in the installation of the pipe; hence, the negligence, if any, would have to be found in the City's failure to inspect the pipe. Grace & Co.’s entire case rested upon the theory that defendants were negligent in failing to make inspection of the pipe-line during a period of forty years to determine its condition. Grace & Co. alleged there was a duty on the part of defendants to inspect and, if defendants did not inspect, they were negligent. Grace & Co. admitted, however, there was no reasonable manner in which the line could be adequately inspected, other than to excavate the soil along the pipe-line and make physical inspection thereof. The pipe-line was some ten feet beneath the surface of the ground. The break occurred in a lateral leading into the shed under a cement platform adjacent to Berth 59. To make an inspection, it would have been necessary for the City to excavate the line in its entirety, including the line under the cement platform, which would mean the breaking of the cement platform to get to the pipe below. According to the testimony of experts, graphitic corrosion occurs sporadically. Graphitic corrosion may occur on the top of the pipe and not on the bottom, or on one side and not the other. Graphitic corrosion may occur in one spot and then may not occur for many feet along the line. It would be necessary to excavate around the entire pipe to locate a corroded area. An examination of the upper half of the pipe would not be sufficient because graphitic corrosion could manifest itself on the lower portion of the pipe and not on the top or sides. To make complete inspection it would be necessary to remove the earth from beneath the line. The removal of earth from beneath the pipe would remove its support, putting a strain upon the pipe itself, and might cause a sinking or bending of the pipe, occasioning damage more extensive than the corrosion itself. Testimony at the trial indicated the City of Los Angeles has adopted a 'do nothing' policy regarding inspection of its water lines. It placed water lines in the earth and then neither makes inspection nor replacement until leaks occur. When leaks develop they were repaired. When they become too numerous the pipe-line was replaced. Defendants contend that when the line was installed it was the best pipe available and that such cast-iron pipe will ordinarily last for many, many years. In fact, evidence indicated that in Pennsylvania similar cast-iron pipe has been in use for more than 150 years in a non-corrosive soil. If any policy has been adopted by municipalities in California, the policy is the same as that followed by the City of Los Angeles; that is, that after castiron water pipe is installed the line is used without inspection or replacement until there are sufficient breaks to indicate the pipe has corroded or has become undependable. Defendants contend there was nothing to indicate the break in question was imminent or the line undependable. In fact, the line was repaired and returned to use, and so far as this court is informed is in use today. Negligence is a question of fact to be determined from all the surrounding circumstances. Although it might have been desirable to make an inspection of the water lines every two or three years, such inspection would be prohibitively expensive and economically unfeasible. The City, like individuals, was required to take only reasonable precautions.