The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1915-04-20
Damage Verdict Upheld.

: The Supreme court, in an opinion file
on Thursday, upheld verdict of SIS
!, rendered in the Burlington county coul
|, in suit brought by B. Henry Jone
, against the Mount Holly Water Com
pany. ; IL.
In the early part OF 1918 there were
number of cases Of typhoid fever il
Mount Holly. Three Of the children G
Mr.. Jones were stricken, and he brough
suit against the company for damage
representing medical and other expense
incident to the illness, claiming that tn
typhoid was caused by impure waite
served by the company.
In the opinion filed last week tn
court held that to make case agains
the company it was not necessary t.
prove with certainty that the drinking
water was the cause Of the typhoid out
break. Reasonable certainty that sucl
is the case the court held was sufficient
1t also found that the water company
had knowledge for at least three and 9
half years before the outbreak that tn,
water it was supplying in Mount Holly
was polluted.
James Mercer Dayis represented Mr.
Jones and V. Claude Palmer appeared
for the Water Company. The case wa,
heard by Justices Swayze, Parker and
Kalisch, the opinion being delivered by
the latter, AS this case attracted con
siderable attention we give the opinion
in full as follows:
The defendant, corporation, is en-
gagged in the business of supplying
water for drinking and domestic pur-
poses in the township of Northampton.
in the county of Burlington. 1t sup
piled water for the purposes stated to
the inhabitants of Mount Holly, among
whom were the plaintiff and his fam
lily. For the supply of water to be
furnished by the defendant company
to the plaintiff for his and his fam
ilys use, the plaintiff paid the defend
ant company $3.50 Zone years sup
Ply in advance, from April l, 1911, to
April l, 1912. In January, 1912, three
of the plaintiffs children became i'll,
which illness was diagnosed as ty-
phoid or para typhoid fever. The
plaintiff claims that the illnesses of his
children were attributable to the
drinking water supplied by the defend
ant company, the water being in an
impure and unwholesome state, in
that it was permeated with dirt and
filth and contained para typhoid germs
IN large quantities, which the defendant
knew or ought to have known in the
exercise of due and reasonable care.
The plaintiff sued the defendant to
recover the moneys expended by him
Tor medical services, medicines and
nursing required by the children dur
ing their illness, and for loss of time
incurred by him as result thereof.
Inc plaintiff recovered a verdict for
$3.50. The defendant seeks to have
this verdict set aside for the various
reasons hereafter referred to and con-
sidered. No claim is made that the
verdict is excessive.
The first reason assigned in the
brief of counsel for defendant is that
the case does not show any contract
ual relation between the plaintiff and
defendant, and that the complaint is
one founded upon contract with an
imperfect allegation of negligence.
But no point is sought to be made of
this and we cannot very well perceive
how a successful attack can now be
made on the nature and character of
the pleadings, since it appears that
the parties to. the controversy treated
the action as one of negligence, and
that the cause was tried out and sub
mitted to the jury in that aspect.
The second reason relied on by the
defendant for a new trial is that the
plaintiff had failed to establish any
negligence of the defendant which
proximately resulted in the illnesses of
the plaintiffs children. There was
plenary testimony from which a Jury
might have reasonably inferred that
the water furnished by the defendant
company was polluted with fecal mat
ter and other filth and contained germs
indicating the presence of typhoid
germs In the water. This testimony
came from witnesses who spoke of the
polluted condition of the water along
the sources of supply of the defendant
company In the month of December,
1911, and before that time and prior
to the breaking out of typhoid fever
epidemic in Mount Holly in the months
OF January, February and March. 1912.
From the testimony it is also appar
ent that the bad condition of the wa
ter supply and the nature and char
acter of the sources of the pollution 4
were matters which were so open and
above the surface that they would give
rise to the fair inference that those
conditions were known to the defend
ant company or, at least, ought to
have been known by it before January.
1912. Besides all this there was proof |
OF actual knowledge of the defendant
company of the pollution of the wa
ter and the sources of its pollution
extending back a period of three and |
a half years prior to the outbreak of |
the typhoid fever epidemic. The let
ter written by the defendant company
under date of March IL, 1912, to the
State Board of Health, is evidence of |
that fact.
In addition there were 20 cases of
typhoid fever in population of g. |
OO0 from December /, 1911, to Feb |
ruary 26, 1912, majority of the
cases occurring in January, and all
OF which persons so afflicted with two
or three exceptions had been using and |
drinking the water supplied by the
defendant company. The testimony
relating to the cases of typhoid fever |
prevailing after the plaintiffs chill
dren being taken i'll was objected to on
the ground that it was immaterial and
irrelevant, but we think that it was
material and relevant on the question
whether or not the water supplied by
the defendant company, which was
drunk by the persons who had been
afflicted with the fever, was the
source of the disease.
1t must be borne in mind that the
defendant company was in the water \
supply business for profit The
plaintiff had paid for the supply which
ne was to receive in advance. Hence
it became the duty of the defendant
company to give to the plaintiff water
MT for domestic purposes, including fit
ness for drinking. Water is a neces-
sity of life and one who undertakes to
trade in it and supply customers
stands in no different position to those
with whom he deals than does dealer
in foodstuffs. He is bound to use
reasonable care that whatever is sup
piled for food or drink shall be ordin-
arily and reasonably pure and whole
some. In Tomlinson VS.. Armour &
Co., rs N. ]. L., TAB, it was held by
our Court of Errors and Appeals that
declaration alleging that defendant
was engaged in the business of putting
up tin cans or vessels and vending
meats for food and domestic use, which
was sold by the defendant to retail
dealer, to be sold to customers and
patrons; that plaintiff purchased said
can of ham from said retailer for food
and domestic use; that the defendant
negligently put up in said can of ham
diseased, unfit and unwholesome ham.
| which was deleteriouS and poisonous