Sievers v. City & County of San Francisco

Citations

• 115 Cal. 648
• 47 P. 687
• 1897 Cal. LEXIS 491

Syllabus

<p>Municipal Corporations —Improper Grading of Street—Abortive Increase of Grade—Error of City Engineer—Injury from Back Water—Liability of City.—Where a contract was let to grade a • street to the official grade, which remained officially established at the former limit, after an abortive attempt by the municipal authorities to increase it by eight feet, and, through an error in the furnishing of grade lines and limits to the contractor by the city engineer and surveyor, the street was filled eight feet above the official grade, which extra filling caused damage to the land of a property owner, by damming a well-defined channel through which surface water was wont to flow, and backing the water upon his land, the city is not liable for such resulting injury.</p> <p>Id.—Remissness of Municipal Officers—Public Functions—Duty Limited by Law—Doctrine of Respondeat Superior Inapplicable.— Municipal corporations are not liable for dereliction or remissness of municipal officers or agents in the performance of public or governmental functions of the city, ór in the performance of duties imposed upon those officers which are prescribed aud limited by express law; and when an injury results from the wrongful act or omission of a municipal officer charged with duty prescribed and limited by law, the doctrine of respondeat superior is inapplicable, and the officer is not treated as the agent or servant of the corporation in the performance of such duty, but is held to be the servant and agent of and controlled by the law, and for his acts the municipality will not be held liable.</p> <p>Id.—Evidence—Cross-examination—Error of City Engineer—Cause of Extra Filling—Harmless Ruling.—Where the plaintiff pleaded and proved that the official grade was eight feet less than the grading actually done, and showed that the proceedings of the supervisors called only for grading to the official grade without specifying feet, the plaintiff is not injured by allowing the defendant upon cross