Day v. United States
Headline: Contractors cannot force the Government to pay for extra flood protections after an extraordinary flood; the Court affirmed that contractors who agreed to finish federal canal and lock work bear that risk and costs.
Holding:
- Contractors on federal projects generally bear natural-disaster risks for completed work.
- Government need not pay for contractors’ precautionary flood defenses absent an express promise.
- Contract allows only extra time for delays from freshets, not extra payment.
Summary
Background
A private contractor entered a December 1892 contract to finish a government canal and locks project near the Columbia River. Congress had appropriated funds and the contract capped total payments. The agreement required the contractor to preserve existing work and complete the project, and it noted freshets and similar events might delay work. The Government had built a 142-foot bulkhead to protect the site, but an 1894 flood rose three feet above that bulkhead and forced the contractor to add temporary defenses and raise the protective dam by six feet.
Reasoning
The key question was whether the Government must pay for the extra work the contractor performed to protect the project from the extraordinary flood. The Court explained that the contract unqualifiedly required the contractor to complete and preserve the work, contemplated possible freshets only as a basis for extra time, and did not promise payment for additional protective work. Because the contractor had assumed the risks within the scope of its undertaking, and because the extra defenses were undertaken for the contractor’s own safety and interest, there was no basis to shift those costs to the United States. The Court affirmed the Court of Claims’ judgment denying recovery.
Real world impact
The decision confirms that contractors on federal construction projects who agree to complete and preserve work generally bear the risk of natural events unless the Government expressly agrees to pay extra. The ruling leaves intact the lower court’s view that, without a specific payment agreement, precautionary work to protect a contractor’s own work will not be charged to the Government.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?