The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1893-05-23
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
An Opinion Against the Citizens' waite
Company of Pomona.

An Opinion against the Citizsns' Water
Company of Pomona.
An opinion by the supreme court
affirming the judgment of the lower
court in the case OF Margaret II. and Il.
II Colegrove. respondents, vs.. Fred j..
Smith ct al, appellants, was received
for filing yesterday, by Deputy Clerk
Session.
The suit was for damages for personal
injuries, and the appeal was by the
defeudants from the judgment, and an
order denying a new trial.
The appellants were the Citizens
Water company of Pomona. They pro-
cured franchise to dig trenches and lay
pipes in the streets of the city. June 1,
1889. they contracted with M. O'Neill
and Frank Osler to dig and fill the
trenches at specified price per 100
feet, a part to be feet wide and part 20
feet wide, all 80 inches deep. The dilches
we're required to be filled ss per the city
ordinance, all road crossings to be prop
erly tamped and kept in repair for go
days after the completion of the work,
and the parties digging the ditch to be
responsible for all damages resulting by
reason OF injury to or breaking of any
pipes owned by other persons. The sp
pellants were required to restore the
streets to their former condition after
laying the pipea under the direction OF
the uperinLendent OF streets.
Mrs. Colezrove was driving along
Carey avenue, June Is, 1888, where pipe
b I'd been laid, and the trench improper
ly filled with loose dirt, in which her
buggy wheels sank, whereby she was
thrown out and injured. There were no
guards along the line of the trench, nor
any notice of its unsafe condition.
The court says in discussing the ques-
tions presented that several exceptions
were taken to the evidence, and to the
refusal of the court to give the Jury GER
tain instructions requested by the de-
PENDANTS, but that all these exceptions
present single question arising upon
the issue raised by defendants ans yer
to the effect that O'Neill and Osler
we're independent contractors in ex-
elusive control OF the work OF filing up
the ditch and for whose negligence the
defendants claimed they were not liable
The court says that while there q
large mum Der of cases where independ
ent contractors are liable, there are Elk
captions to the general doctrine, and
holds that this is one OF them.
1t also says, after quoting largely
from former decisions, that whether or
not the city of Pomona was liable for
the injury to respondent is immsterial.
The contractors, O'Neill and Oser, were
undoubtedly liable, and if 80, appellants
would have been liable had they done
the work themselves; and the ques-
ton is whether they did or could
relieve themselves from responsibility
by letting the work to independent con-
tractors. The fact that there was not an
express contract between appellants and
the city to answer all damages did not at
all affect the question, since the i'm
piled obligation arising from the fran
chise and the character of the work inn
posed upon them liability for injuries
caused by their negligence in every re-
spect as conclusive as an express con-
tract.
After referring to still further deci-
sions, the court holds that the judgment
and order of the superior court were cor
rect and affirms them.