The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1893-12-21
THE CITY MAY HAVE TO PAY.
Its Liability in Case of Conhagra-
ton From Fireworks.

ton From Fireworks.
Inc insurance companies, as well as
great many others, are opposed to the in
discriminate use of fireworks in the heart
of the city, and it is not impossible that
the city may some day have big suit for
damages on its hands by falling to effec-
tually prohibit the firing of fireworks
where tn ey are likely to cause couflag-
ration.
AS it is now there is free license to dis
charge fireworks in the squares any,
where soHth of Liberty street five days be-
mas and there is. a pretty
good pyrotechinic display going
on the most of that time north of Liberty
street, although it is prohibited by ordi-
nance and the police have special instruc-
tions to arrest all parties violating the
ordinance.
The line was drawn on Liberty
street in order to remove the danger from
the business section of the city.
Since the ordinance was
passed hundreds of thousands of dollars
have been invested in property near
enough to Liberty street to be endangered
by fireworks Although the ordinance
limits the fireworks displays to the
squares they are about as general in the
streets as anywhere A well known in
surance man said yesterday that the only
place in the city where, in the opinion of
insurance men, fireworks can be used with
safety is the park extension. If the city
IN falling to properly protect the property
OF its citizens dy allowing fireworks to be
discharged where fires are likely to result
the insurance companies claim it is liable
for the damages in case of fire. In this
connection insurance companies, as we'll
as the general public, will be interested
in the following fuller details regarding
the recent decision Of the court of appeals
of New York in the case of Speir VS.. city
OF Brooklyn. Briefly stated, the case is
as follows:
On the evening of Nov. 1, 1887, politi-
cal mass meeting was held in the Academy
OF Music, Brooklyn, N. Y, and display
OF fireworks was given at the corner of
Clinton and Montague streets. During
such display rocket was discharged in
such manner that it entered an attic
window of Speir's house near by, setting
fire to 1t, and doing considerable damage.
Spelr brought an action against the city
for damages, and obtained a judgment for
$1,000 On appeal by the city, this judg-
ment was affirmed by the general term,
and later by the court of appeals, with in-
tereSt from March 80, 1888.
The party who conducted the fireworks
obtained a permit from the mayor of
Brooklyn, which permit recited that it
was granted under chapter 3, article 3,
section 2, of the city ordinances. A copy
of the permit was sent from the mayors
office to the chief of police, and in conse-
quence of the permit the police did not
interfere with the display.
The finding of the trial Judge, that the
use of the street for the discharge of fire
,,.fg
that the city, by licensing a public nui-
sance in the street, was liable for any
damage resulting therefrom, was held by
the court of appeals to be amply justified
by the law and facts.
The court said: 1.-The discharge of fire.
works in city under any circumstances
is attended with danger. In the present
case the danger was greatly enhanced by
the location. The display was managed
by private persons, under no official re-
sponsibility, and no municipal or public
interest was concerned. Under the cir
cumstances, in view Of the place, the dan
ger involved and the occasion, the trans
action was an unreasonable, unwarranted
and unlawful use of the streets, exposing
persons and property to injury, and was
properly found to constitute a public
nuisance
The court further says: eff the city di-
rected or authorized the discharge Of the
fireworks which resulted in the injury
complained of, it is, we think, liable; and
there seems to be no reason in justice
which should deny the injured party rep
aration."
The purport of this important decision
is that, when a municipal corporation
authorizes or formally permits wrongful
act, it is liable for damage to person or
property resulting from such act, and, in
cidentally, insurance companies sustain
ing loss by such acts are, by the law of
subrogation, entitled to reimbursement.