Court Opinion

ID: 9771980
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:03:55.143388+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:40.743916
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
LANGDON, Justice.
The appellees, W. A. Weems and wife, Virgie Weems, state that (1) they have no quarrel with the long established rule of law that a municipality is not liable for the negligence of a building inspector in the performance of his duties because such are governmental functions, and (2) in the instant case the judgment was in no way predicated upon negligence of the building inspector.
Appellees emphasize that the judgment is based upon the trial court’s finding that an employee of the City electrical department was negligent in terminating the current at the apartment building because of his failure to run a standard test to determine whether the electrical current was energized in the area in dispute and that this negligence was the proximate cause of the damage sustained by the plaintiffs. Appel-lees further emphasize that whether or not the building inspector was guilty of negligence is not an issue in this case.
We should like to emphasize that the only reason the electricity was terminated was because the building inspector ordered that it be terminated. His order of termination was authorized by ordinance.
The electrical department, once it received such an order of termination, was required by ordinance to comply with it. The electrical department of the City had no other alternative. It was under no duty to apply any test of its own or to ignore *212the order of the building inspector. It had no discretion in the matter.
With reference to the “standard test” referred to by appellees we are unable to find in this record that such a test was established.
It was undisputed that the utility department of the City had no right to go beyond the light pole or the meter. It is undisputed that there were only two meters at the location here involved. The one controlling the area in question was terminated pursuant to the order of the building inspector. But for such order it would not have been terminated.
Appellees’ motion for rehearing is this day overruled.