Frisch v. Mayor of Baltimore

Urner, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. In the amended declaration held demurrable in this case the plaintiffs alleged that, on or about the 10th day of Hovember, 1923, they “were tenants in lawful possession of a part of the premises known as Ho. 420 W. Lexington Street, in the City of Baltimore, to wit, the first floor and basement, tbeir landlords being the defendants other than the Mayor and City Council,” and “that on or about the day and date aforesaid the premises of said plaintiffs were Hooded with water as a result of the breaking and bursting of certain water pipes in the alley to the rear of said premises, said water pipes being designed and used for the purpose of supplying water to the entire building and premises, whereby the stock merchandise of said plaintiffs was ruined and damaged,” and “that all the loss, injury and damage aforesaid was caused by the negligence and want of care of said defendants and each of them, in the installation, maintenance, and failure to repair said water pipes, and through no fault upon the part of the plaintiffs thereunto directly contributing.” Upon sustaining demurrers to the declaration, the Court of Common Pleas entered judgment in favor of the defendants for costs. The appeal is from that judgment. ³¹² The ruling on the demurrers was correct, as the declaration was deficient in its statement of grounds upon which liability could be legally charged against either the lessors or the municipality named as defendants. There is no allegation as to the ownership- and control of the water pipes which burst with resulting damage to the plaintiffs’ goods in the leased premises.

It is not stated whether the alley in which, the pipes were located is a private way of the lessors or a public thoroughfare of the city. The existence of a duty on the part of the respective defendants in regard to the pipes is not alleged. If these omissions could be disregarded, the declaration would still be subject to the criticism that it is not sufficiently specific in its allegation of negligence. The averment that the defendants were negligent “in the installation, maintenance and failure to repair” the pipes did not apprise them of the particular charge of neglect which they would be required to meet at the trial.

It is clear that the declaration could not be held good on demurrer consistently with principles which this court has definitely approved. Phelps v. Howard County, 117