The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P owns a small house. On February 11, 1968, water poured into P's basement. It damaged the boiler, floor, and walls. The source of the flood was a ruptured water main in front of her house. P filed a claim for property damage against City (D), which responded with a letter stating, in substance, that Consolidated Edison (D) had been working on the main, and hence P's claim was against Consolidated Edison (D). P then commenced an action in the Small Claims against Ds in the amount of $300. Neither D offered any evidence. Each moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that there was no proof of negligence. There was none.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.