Wehrlin H. Edouard Loffeld, Le Problème cardinal de la Missiologie et des Missions catholiques, 1956. In: Revue d'histoire et de philosophie religieuses, 39e année n°2,1959. pp. 190-192

Wehrlin, H.

English

Persee: Revues scientifique en sciences humaines et sociales

Edouard Loffeld, Le Problème cardinal de la Missiologie et des Missions catholiques, 1956

Périodiques Scientifiques en Édition Électronique

Brigham Young University Law School

Brigham Young University Law SchoolBYU Law Digital CommonsUtah Supreme Court Briefs (1965 –)1968H. Grant Johnson and Helen Johnson, His Wife v.Salt Lake County Cottonwood Sanitary District :Appellant's BriefFollow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/uofu_sc2Original Brief submitted to the Utah Supreme Court; funding for digitization provided by theInstitute of Museum and Library Services through the Library Services and Technology Act,administered by the Utah State Library, and sponsored by the S.J. Quinney Law Library; machine-generated OCR, may contain errors.Dwight L. KING; Attorney for Plaintiffs and AppellantsThis Brief of Appellant is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah SupremeCourt Briefs (1965 –) by an authorized administrator of BYU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact hunterlawlibrary@byu.edu.Recommended CitationBrief of Appellant, Johnson v. Salt Lake Co., No. 11077 (1968).https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/uofu_sc2/3345IN OF THE THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF UTAH H. GRANT JOHNSON and HELEN JOHNSON, his wife, Plaintiffs and Appellants, vs. SALT LAKE COUNTY COTTONWOOD SANITARY DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent. APPELLANTS' BRIEF Case No. 11077 Appeal from the Judgment of the Third District Court In and for Salt Lake County, Utah The Honorable D. Frank Wilkins, Judge DWIGHT L. KING 2121 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah Attorney for Plaintiffs and Appellants WORSLEY, SNOW & CHRISTENSEfi1- I L E By H. JAMES CLEGG li ~ . Seventh Floor · · Continental Bank Building J.2;'. ,; 2 2 19tif· Salt Lake City, Utah Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent D TABLE OF CONTENTS Page STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE CASE_ _______________ 1 DISPOSITION IN LOWER COURT _______________________________________ 2 RELIEF SOUGHT ON APPEAL -------------------------------------------- 2 ST A TEMENT OF FACTS ________________________________________________________ 2 ARGUMENT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 POINT I. SEWER DISTRICTS ARE LIABLE FOR THEIR BREACHES OF CONTRACT AND NEGLI-GENT CONDUCT -------------------------------------------------------- 3 CONCLUSION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 CASES CITED Cobia v. Roy City 12 Utah 2d 375, 366 P.2d 986 ____________________________________________ 5 Nestman v. South Davis County Water Improvement District 16 Utah 2d 198 398 P.2d 203 ---------------------------- 3 ' ' STATUTES Utcih Code Annotated, Section 17-6-1 ---------------------------------------- 2 Utnh Code Annotated Section 17-6-3.4 ----------------------------------3-4 ' Utah Co<le Annotated, Page 610, Volume 2 ---------------------------- 3 IN THE OF THE SUPREME STATE COURT OF UTAH H. GRANT JOHNSON and HELEN JOHNSON, his wife, vs. Plaintiffs and Appellants, SALT LAKE COUNTY COTTONWOOD SANITARY DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent. APPELLANTS' BRIEF Case No. 11077 STATEJ\IENT OF THE NATURE OF THE CASE Appellants are the owners of a home at 6350 South 2300 East, Salt Lake County, Utah, which is serviced by respondent, Cottonwood Sanitary District of Salt Lake County. Respondent's main sewer lines clogged and backed the raw sewage into the base-nwnt of appellants' home, causing damages for which 0ppellants sued. 1 DISPOSITION IN LOWER COURT This matter \Yas pre-tried and the issue of governmental immunity preserved by the Pre-Trial Court for determination in advance of trial. The matter vvas argued before the Honorable D. Frank Wilkins and he granted respondent's Motion to Dis-miss with Prejudice on the ground that the Cotto11-vvood Sanitary District was immune to suit. RELIEF SOUGHT ON APPEAL Appellants seek to have the judgment of dis-1nissal reversed and the matter of govermental im-munity determined adverse to respondent. STATEMENT OF FACTS Respondent is a sewer district organized under 17-6-1 Utah Code Annotated to serve the area iu which the appellants' home is located. On March 15. 1966 raw sewage backed up in the main sewer lines of the respondent and jnto the home of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs claimed that this was clue to the negligence of the sewer company in the operation of the maiu sev\'er lines. It is stipulated that the sewer service to plaintiff' 1s the result of a contract, and for this service plaintiffs pay defendant the sum of $3.00 per month. 2 UCA Section 17-6-3.4 provides as follows: '"The board shall have the right to sue and be sued? to ente_r into all contracts which it may consider desirable for the benefit of the dis-trict, and generally may do all things and per-form or cause to be performed all acts which in its opinion are necessary or desirable in the conduct of its affairs and in the operation of the properties of the district." (Page 610, Volume 2, Utah Code Annotated) Honorable D. Frank VVilkins dismissed plaintiffs' complaint upon the ground and for the reason that he believed the governmental immunity provisions of the State Constitution prevented the district from being sued. ARGUMENT POINT I SEVVER DISTRICTS ARE LIABLE FOR THEIR BREACHES OF CONTRACT AND NEGLIGENT CONDUCT. Sewer districts are liable for their breaches of contract and negligent conduct under Section 17-6-3.4 of the Utah Code Annotated and have so been held by analogy in a recent case in this court. In the case of Nestman vs. South Davis Countr Water Improuement District, 16 Utah 2d 198, 398 P. ld 203, this court had before it a flooding damage suit which was the result of the South Davis County 3 \Yater Improvement District's resenoir g1vmg way. The court carefully examined the language of Sectiol! 17-6-3.+ and placed considerable emphasis on the words "sue and be sued" (See Page 201 Utah Reporu1 and ruled that the doctrine of governmental im-munity did not extend to the South Davis County vVater In1provement District. It is plaintiffs' position that their case is indis-tinguishable from the Nestman case. It is a fact that one district is a sev\'er district and the other district is a ,,·ater district, but both are organized and operating under exactly the same language as far as the creation of the district is con-cerned. In both cases the plaintiff vvas damaged as a result of claimed negligence on the part of the district. It would be difficult to distinguish betwee11 the needs of the community for pure water and water control and the needs of the community for all adequate se\vage disposal system. One aspect of the plaintiffs' case \vhich seems to be 1nuch more persuasive of their rights to claim damages against the district is the contractual rela-tionship between the district and plaintiffs. In addi-tion to the onfoiar~- duties \vhich a district O\ves the public generally to handle its business in a reas01rnh1' careful manner, the district contracts for the sewllge disposal services and receives $3.00 per month for this service. -t It is respectfully submitted that plaintiffs would hd\T the rig-ht to expect a some'vvhat greater duty of care because of the contractual relationship than the general public might expect. Some confusion is created m the laws of the State of Utah by reason of the holding of this court in Cobia z's. Roy City, 1Z Utah 2d 375, 366 P.2d 986, wher·ein the court ruled that the municipal corpora-tion was exempt from suit vvhere it operated a sewage disposal system. Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the court's determination in the Roy City case was based upon the nature of the municipal corporation 0nd that the subsequent ruling in the Nestman case clearly distinguishes the nature of the municipal governmental immunity and refuses to extend it to districts which do not qualify as municipal corpora-tions but which are organized under the provisions of Title 17, Chapter 6-3. Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the Nestman decision is applicable and that this court should n'verse the Trial Court and remand the plaintiffs' cause for trial. CONCLUSION [t is respectfully submitted that the Trial Court t'ITP<l and that this court should enter an order re-'.) versing the Trial Court decision and ordering the trial of plaintiffs' case on its merits. Respectfully submitted, DVVIGHT L. KING 2121 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah Attorney for Plaintiffs and Appellants 