The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1910-12-30
Opinion of the Supreme Court
In the Flannagan=keever Cases

the same misfortune and would be
bankrupted thereby. The assessed
valuation of the city is less than
$4,000,000. If the city is not ex-
empted from liability it is subject
to claims of the same nature as the
present amounting to over $4,000.
900. Thus the very existence of the
city is threatened and the city sub.
jected to total destruction, which
could be of no proportionate advan-
tage to the individuals who suffered.
1t readily suggests itself as an an
Swer to this dark representation
that the number and nature of these
causes does not appear in the rec
ord, and is not known to the court;
besides for the purposes of this case
the neglect of defendant is necessar-
lily assumed
To the defendant, under the law,
a number of defenses are available.
How conclusive they may be in fact
is wholly beyond any conjecture
which we can recognize. Accordingly
we must regard defendants figures
as purely hypothetical. The ques-
ton is one of general principles rec
OgniZed by the law and not of the
private views of court or counsel as
to what the convenience or necessity
of particular city may dictate un-
der particular circumstances. The
general experience of public and pri-
vate waterworks is that ordinarily
their operation involves no such
financial disaster as defendant por-
trays. 1t is obvious that sound
public policy holds city to a high
degree of faithfulness in providing
an adequate supply of pure water.
Nor does it appear why the citizens
should be deprived of the stimulating
effects of the fear of liability on the
energy and care of it's officials; nor
why a city should be exempt from
liability while private corporation
under the same circumstances should
be held responsible for its conduct
and made to contribute to the inno-
cent persons it may have damaged.
AS Elliot, j., said in East Grand
Forks V. Luck, 81 Mimi, 373, when
the municipality enters the field of
ordinary private business, it does not
exercise governmental powers. It's
purpose is, not to govern the inhab.
itants, but to make for them and it.
self private benefit.
AS far as the nature of the pow
ers exercised is concerned, it is i'm
material whether the city owns the
plant and sells the water, or con-
tracts with private corporation to
supply the water. 1t is not in either
case exercising municipal function.
When municipality en-
cages in private enterprise for
profit. it should have the same rights
and be subject to the same liabilities
as private corporations or individ-
uals.' See Powell v. Duluth, 81
Mimi, SO; Furgeson v. Doran, 1903
Mimi, 43; State ex rel " Ed. Water
G. Light, los Mimi, 472. Thus in
Wiltse v. Redwing, SO Mimi, 255, a
city operating the waterworks was
held liable for water escaping from
an embankment under the rule, in
Rylands V. Fletcher. For" said
Start, c. j., although municipal
corporation, it was engaged in the
business of supplying water to it's in
habitants for profit, an undertaking
of private nature"
This is undoubtedly the general
rule. See Piper v. Madison, 122 N.
w. $50; Park Commissioners v. Com
mon Council, % Mich. 229; Baily v.
Mayer, Hill SCI. CAS- to the reason
ing of this case, however, see Oar
lingtOn v. the Mayor 81 N. Y. 1914
1913, CT. Messane v. Mayor, 100 N.
Y. 1913. Aldrich V. Trip, % Am.
434; Ill. Trust Co. v. Kansas City,
rs Fed. 271, 2S2; Winona v. Betset,
1853 Fed. 321; Judson v. Wingstead,
GS Att. 999; Wagner V. Rhode Is
land, Fl L. r. A. 522; Esberg ".
Portland. 43 L. r. A. 435; Brown v.
Salt Lake City, IA l.. r. A. GIG;
Herrigan v. Norwich. n Conn. 1858;
Syracuse v. Springfield, ia Mass.
43O; City of Chicago v. SELF, Schwab
& Co. POP III. 545; Philadelphia v.
Gelmarlieu, II Pa. al. Springfield
Fire & Marine ms. Co. v. Village of
Keeseville AZ N. E. 4O5, Asher VS..
Hutchinson & Co. 81 l.. R. A. So.
The cases in which city has been
held responsible or irresponsible for
damages by fire consequent upon an
adequate supply of water are in a
class of cases by themselves. From
many points of view the rule hold
ing the city liable for its negligence
is not consistent with the rule there
announced. The law does not under
take to achieve the impossible. AS
was said in Gould v. Winona Gas
IN 100 Mimi 0eQ mn cel 0It ;c o,,;