Stubbs v. City of Rochester
New York Court of Appeals
226 N.Y. 516, 125 N.E. 137 (1919)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
The City of Rochester (the city) (defendant) maintained separate water systems for drinking, known as the Hemlock system, and for firefighting, known as the Holley system. In May 1910 the two systems intermingled near the Brown Street Bridge, and the Hemlock system became contaminated with sewage present in the Holley system. The contamination was not discovered until October 1910. Thomas Stubbs (plaintiff) worked at a factory one block from the Brown Street Bridge, where he drank water daily. Stubbs did not leave the city during the summer of 1910 and only drank water from within the city. When he became ill with typhoid fever in September 1910, he brought suit against the city for negligence. At trial, evidence was presented that typhoid fever has many causes, including drinking contaminated water, interacting with an infected person, and causes that are as yet unknown. Stubbs presented nearly 60 witnesses from the area who drank the contaminated water and contracted typhoid fever. Expert medical testimony indicated that the outbreak of typhoid cases in the city, including Stubbs’s illness, was caused by drinking contaminated water. The trial court granted a nonsuit against Stubbs, dismissing his claim before it could reach the jury. The Appellate Division affirmed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hogan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
