E. G. FIKE & CO. v. LATIMER et al.

E. G. FIKE & CO. v. LATIMER et al.
1932 OK 519
13 P.2d 89
158 Okla. 165
Case Number: 20615
Decided: 07/06/1932
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

E. G. FIKE & CO.
v.
LATIMER et al.

Syllabus

¶0 Municipal Corporations--Contractor Having Completed Sanitary Sewer in Accordance With Plans and Specifications Held not Liable to Landowner for Flood Waters Backing Up Through Sewer and Overflowing Tops of Manholes and Spreading Over Land.
A contractor who follows the plans and specifications furnished by a municipality for the erection of a sanitary sewer, and completes the sewer and settles with the municipality for the work, and turns it over to the municipality, February 27th, is not liable to a landowner for flood waters coming from the stream, into which the sewer emptied, through the sewer, April 13th, thereafter, overflowing the tops of the manholes and spreading over his land.

Appeal from District Court, Tulsa County; Edwin R. McNeill, Judge.

Action by F. W. Latimer against E. G. Fike & Company et al. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant named appeals. Reversed.

E. F. Cadwell and G. A. Paul, for plaintiff in error.
Phil W. Davis, Jr., L. O. Todd, and Allen. Underwood & Canterbury, for defendants in error.
F. B. Dillard, amicus curiae.

KORNEGAY, J.

¶1 This case was tried at the same time as the case of Hiram Adams, Plaintiff, v. Town of Red Fork et al., No. 39227, in the lower court, and the petitions were practically the same, with the exception of the names of the parties and the description of the lands involved, the amounts demanded being the same.

¶2 The jury trial resulted in a verdict for $ 600. It was briefed in connection with No. 20613, and the evidence was practically the same. We have examined the authorities relied on, and are of the opinion that, under the evidence in this case, there was no liability. A further discussion of the matter can be found in the case of E. G. Fike & Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Hiram Adams et al., Defendants in Error, No. 20613, 158 Okla. 158, 13 P.2d 83, opinion this day rendered.