H.R. Moch Co. v. Rensselaer Water Co.

New York Court of Appeals · 1928 · Torts

TortsThird-party beneficiaryNegligenceStatutory dutythird-party beneficiaryincidental beneficiaryLawrence v. Foxmisfeasance vs nonfeasance

Facts

The defendant water company had a contract with the city of Rensselaer to furnish water for hydrants, public buildings, sewer flushing, and street sprinkling, and also to supply private takers at their homes and factories at stated rates. While that contract was in force, a building caught fire and the flames spread to the plaintiff's nearby warehouse, destroying it and its contents. The complaint alleged that the defendant was promptly notified of the fire but negligently failed to furnish sufficient water and pressure, although it was equipped and had agreed to provide enough to prevent the fire from reaching the warehouse. The plaintiff sought damages on the theory that the defendant failed to fulfill its contract with the city.

Issue

Can a property owner whose warehouse was destroyed by a spreading fire recover from a water company that contracted with the city to furnish hydrant water, on theories of third-party beneficiary contract liability, common-law negligence, or breach of statutory duty, when the company allegedly failed to supply adequate water pressure to extinguish the fire?

Rule

A contract with a city to furnish water at hydrants gives no private right of action to an inhabitant unless the contract manifests an intention that liability to individuals be primary and immediate rather than incidental. In tort, liability for negligent omission arises only when the defendant's conduct has advanced to a point where stopping would actively work an injury, as by launching a force or instrument of harm, rather than merely refusing to confer a benefit. A statute requiring a water company to furnish service upon demand does not create liability to others who suffer only indirect or incidental damage from a failure in service.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The city of Dayton signed a five-year contract with Riverbend Utility Services to maintain water pressure at municipal fire hydrants for an annual fee paid by the city. After a warehouse owned by Elena Ruiz was destroyed in a fire that spread from a neighboring lot, Ruiz alleged Riverbend had failed to provide sufficient hydrant pressure and sued for her property loss.

Ruiz's best argument is that she may sue on the city contract. What is the most likely result?

Explanation. A contract to furnish water at city hydrants is ordinarily for the city's benefit in its corporate capacity, not for direct compensation to individual inhabitants. Under the majority's rule, a private plaintiff may sue only if the contract manifests an intention that liability to individuals be primary and immediate rather than incidental. Here, the benefit to Ruiz from hydrant service is incidental, so no third-party beneficiary action lies. (Derived from H.R. Moch Co. v. Rensselaer Water Co. (1928).)