Case Name: City of Cincinnati v. Charles Filser
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1914-02-14
Citations: 19 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 112
Docket Number: 
Parties: City of Cincinnati v. Charles Filser.
Judges: Jones, E. II., J.; Swing, J., concurs; Jones, O. B., J., dissents in a separate opinion.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Reports (new series)
Volume: 19
Pages: 112–118

Head Matter:
LIABILITY OF MUNICIPALITY FOR. DAMAGES FROM A LANDSLIDE.
Court of Appeals for Hamilton County.
City of Cincinnati v. Charles Filser.
Decided, February 14, 1914.
Municipal Corporations — Removal of Support of Hillside in Improving Street — Barth Slips Upon Adjoining Property — City Liable.
Where a municipality removes earth from a hillside in improving a street, the soil of which hill is known to be slip soil, .without shoring up the bank the support of which is thus removed, and a slide upon the lot of an abutting owner results after a hard rain, liability for the damage thus suffered can not be escaped on the ground that the work was being done by an independent contractor, or that the city was the owner of the dominant tenement, or that the slipping of the hillside following a heavy storm and downpour was an act of God.
Coleman Avery, Assistant City Solicitor, for plaintiff in error.
Geoffrey Goldsmith and Guido Gores, contra.
Jones, E. II., J.; Swing, J., concurs; Jones, O. B., J., dissents in a separate opinion.

Opinion:
The plaintiff in error seeks to reverse the judgment of the court below, assigning many reasons why this should be done.
The case presents numerous interesting questions and has been the source of much discussion among the members of this court, and has received prolonged and careful consideration at our hands. The majority of the court are of opinion that there was no prejudicial error in the trial below and that the judgment of the court of common pleas should be affirmed.
The negligence alleged in the petition, is that .the city failed to bolster up or shore up the soil of the hillside while they were engaged in removing dirt from the street opposite the plaintiff's residence and that the city's negligence in this respect caused the damage to plaintiff's property. This statement is sufficient to explain the nature of the complaint although it may not be complete. The evidence offered at the trial fully supports this charge of negligence in the petition. It is shown by the evidence that the city through its civil engineer and other officers and employees had actual notice of the danger to adjoining property which attended the work upon which they were about to enter. The evidence further shows that at the time the slide occurred precautions, which, in the opinion of expert witnesses produced at the trial, were necessary owing to the known nature of the soil, had not been taken.
. There is no claim in the answer, nor is there any attempt to show by evidence, that it would have been impossible upon the part of the city in the exercise of reasonable care to have prevented the damage which we think the evidence shows followed as a natural consequence of the character of the work being done. The duty resting upon the city as well as upon an individual to so carry on its work, even upon its own premises, as not to interfere with or cause damage to its neighbors, we feel that the evidence was sufficient to warrant the jury in finding actionable negligence on the part of the city.
It is claimed that the work was being done by an independent contractor. This claim we think is fully and ably answered in the brief of counsel for defendant in error. The work was shown to be dangerous to adjoining property owners unless carried on carefully. Such being the case, the city could not absolve itself from liability by employing another to do the work.
It is further claimed that the city was the owner of the dominant tenement and had a right to the lateral support of its street by the ground of defendant in error. This is all true, but the trouble is that it had no application to the facts in this case. The jury must have found in this ease that the work being done by the city had a direct connection with the slipping of the hill. The damage was not caused by the weight of the street toppling .over the wall that had been built by the defendant in error; it was caused by the dirt from the hill slipping down upon and underneath the street, and the very doctrine urged here by the plaintiff in error made it the duty of the city to provide a lateral support along' the line of its street, and if by failing to do so it caused the injury to another's property, particularly while it was engaged in digging and removing the soil of the hill, we think its failure so to do makes it liable for any damage resulting therefrom.
It is also claimed by plaintiff in error that the damage was due to "an act of God." In this connection it was claimed that just before the slide occurred which caused the damage, there was an extraordinary rainfall. There is nothing in the evidence to show that this rain was an unprecedented one, nor does the evidence clearly establish that it was unusual for the season of the year in this latitude. We hold that such rains as this must reasonably be anticipated and that the city can not be excused from the consequences of its negligence by not contemplating the probability of heavy rain.
We find no error in-the charge of the court, nor any prejudicial error in its refusal to give certain special charges requested.
There being in the opinion of the majority of the court no errors apparent on the record, the judgment of the' court below will be affirmed.