The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-09-17
A DELAYED FIRE ALARM.


court looked into many prior decisions along
the same line and ruled that in this case
the destruction Of the plsiptin's build ne
and machinery was not the direct pToNimAte
result Of the negligence OF the telephone
company To prov ode proper connect ION. and
that defendant was not liable for The loss
sust aimed
The case was voluuard-sn versus the Iowa
Telephone Company. ami was brought
under two sections Of the Iowa statutes. one
OF which provides that a telephone or tele-
graph company shall be- held liable for an
unreasonable delay In the transmission Of
messages. and the other declaring that IN
an action aRains, a telephone company for
damages negligence on thu part ~ the tele-
phone company shall he presumed on proof
Of unrea sona BILE delay in furnishing n proper
connection within reasonable time. the bur
den being on the defendant TO establish by a
preponderance OF evidence that the delay
was not due to it, negligence.
The facts showed that the plaintiff was
awakened at / 80 4. NJ. and found his factory
on FIRE he went Ia The telephone and tried
TO call Central hut no one responded. al
though he worked the receiver for nine ar
ten minutes. Then h. handed the receiver
10 his wife and she got The operator in one
or two minutes The plaintiff. after his
failure 10 get the connection, started for a
FIRE station four blocks away TO give the
alarm, hui met the hose company On the
way. the department having been called bv
a neigh bOr The irenen we're on the scene
a minute and half thereafter. but the FIRE
Was then beyond control NOproof was fur
nished at the trial a. to the time when Tho
fire got beyond control. nor whether inter
VeninR acts might not have prevented the
hr~men from saving the building had they
been warned Of the fire ~ tho time.
The Court averred that tho liability Of a
telephone company Is defined nv statute.
but the damages recoverable must he the
proximate result Of the unreasonable delay
proven. The duty alleged to have been
violated was TO the subsc riber a. such. and
not owing to any special undertaking to
maintain a hre alarm system in the city.
The FIRE was the primary cause NJ the lo--,
and the defendant had nothing 20 do with
IT, hut II the failure to nut out the fra was
the direct and natural consequence Of the
unreasonable delay in making the conne"-
ton then there could he no doubt Of the
liability.
hut several links in the chain Of sequences
are involved in doubt and speculation.
SAYS tho CouN ~ what time must the
hremen have been on the ground 60 have
saved tho property No one can answer
save from conjecture. All realize that in
such emergencies time IL preciou-. hut who
can saw from the situation presented in this
case how many minutes meant the loss Of
the plaintiffs property? suppose the con
nection at the central once had been made
promptly. would the fremen IN charge of
the nre station have responded promptly
aud promptly have rung the FIRE beil'
Would the members of the department have
heard and promptly have repaired To the
-CeneY Was the apparatus for eXtinRuish-
ing the Are IN working order and tho
water supply accessible ami sufficient
Each Of these independent agencies must
be linked together m a line Of rausation in
order TO comet the defendant With the
loss None ~ them WAS under the direction
or control of the telephone company.
The Court SAYS that after the expert
enre OF ages. fighting hre. even with modern
ma hinery and apparatus. l. pr"'sriou-
business and uncertain in 80 results Had
everything worked out - calculated prob
ahv part Of the building and it, contents
would have been saved. but m" evidence
furnished no basis for a legal inference 80
this kind II - easy 20 a-"rrfain the ncVII-
gene Of the telephone company. but " falls
far short Of connecting the defendant with
acted through the intervening agencies a.
nero instruments or vehicles in a natural
line Of Causation To the loss. there would ne
ground for "a wing the defendant was liable.
declares the Court
Referring to decisions IN other actions
for damages due To hre. the Court says
rhe situation differs from that IN which Rose
through which water g, hcnE poured on IRE j.
rHt and because thereof the flames which we're
being eNuaguished. consume the property. for
Their. the wrong i In pre- rntinE the IRE depar'
luen'. Nhen actually engaged IN rNunguish.nV
a frr from accomplishing 10, design The CIR
ryrr.iAncrs that the nrrncn act ,oun'ariIy
InstrIuentAnuss hts act - the direct cause Of
shutting OF thc VNicr Supply. Thr, n Nc'slir
Company - Pathway .ioa Nass
~. IAN. Rep 80 the plaintiffs mAnufar'urIng
plant took irr ant the hose va, extended AcoSs
1eisniAnfs Uacs Ani connected win = IS drant
The probability T. that the nrr would have been
, Nungushei IN short ume vhrn = freight
Train came along aud though duly warned care
-Ssiy over tn- hose and In 'urcd u - that 10
roHlI not he rrpAirrd sea>pnsbI,. and the plAnt
Sss consumed. The defendant VAS held liable
m the principle that 10 SNiinguisn nrr urrmsn
were AIthur'srd 10 take possession ~ the right
n way though ne hoe WAS not plaInur,
property nor the urcmrn it. employer the, we're
,C'ualy furnishing water 80 the plaintiff an.
thereby cNunGuishinE the IRE AMI were rendering
IN" sane ssrNice a. II hired hN 10 anu Isins it,
ho,e cutting ~ the supply In these cirriur
'tAncs- was ~ really an Interference With the
painur's possession - n 10 held TIC possesslo IN
under deed and - II the men we're lsborIng under
contract The wrong Was held to have been the
proNimate cause
The Court mentions many cases that have
followed the rule lad down IN 'he above. and
states that N HERMAN versus Met Ioust
70 40 Mass ~ IaN , sis, the defendant
n'erfered with the -" Of a hvdran' by fire
men. delaying the conner ton OF th. hose 80
hat the plaintiffs house was DESTROYED.
men hut for such interference probably
he house would have been saved In that
rs-~ the Court IN holding me defenda nr Iiapl.
SAID
Though there Was no obligation upon the city.
IN eNtinEhish the nrc 10 does not follow that 'hr
pAinun vas not deprived ~ anything to which
she had . legal right II the defendant obstrirted
he nrrmcn In getting water from the hvdrtnt
She has a lrSaIriEht 10 have 'h- urencn get water
q they choose To do 80 from supply especially
pro, ldrd for that purpose. ana phie ", obstrtr
Hon may not have been = crime - u Was
; tortious and wrongful Interference With p-r~nns
-ngAge'i In putting out the urr
In the telephone oa~s the Court con
rhd@-