Harris v. District of Columbia

Background

A young child, Adelbert Harris, was hurt when a worker filling a portable water tank for street sprinkling dropped a plug cover. The child sued the District of Columbia for damages. The Court of Appeals asked the Supreme Court to decide whether sprinkling streets to keep down dust for public comfort and health is a governmental act that prevents the District from being liable for such injuries.

Reasoning

The Court examined whether the work was a discretionary public function or a private, corporate duty. The opinion explains that municipalities generally are not liable for how they perform discretionary acts meant to protect public health and comfort. The Court contrasted that with cases where cities are responsible for negligent maintenance or repairs. Relying on earlier decisions, the Court concluded that sweeping and sprinkling streets to control dust is a discretionary public act, not a special municipal duty to keep things in repair, and therefore the District is not liable for the employee’s negligence.

Real world impact

The result means people injured during routine public health operations like street sprinkling may not recover damages from the District for employee mistakes. The Court explicitly answered the certified question in the affirmative, insulating the District from this kind of tort liability under the facts stated. This decision follows earlier cases and applies common-law principles rather than maritime rules.

Dissents or concurrances

Three Justices—Holmes, Brandeis, and Clarke—dissented. The opinion does not set out their reasoning in the certified answer.