## Facts

- A private water company operated under New York law and had an exclusive contract with a city to supply water for public purposes, including service at fire hydrants for an annual per-hydrant fee.
- The contract also contemplated supplying water to private consumers within the city at reasonable rates subject to a schedule.
- A fire started in the city and spread to the plaintiff’s nearby warehouse, destroying the warehouse and its contents.
- The plaintiff alleged the water company received prompt notice of the fire but failed to supply adequate water quantity and pressure to suppress the fire before it reached the warehouse.
- The plaintiff claimed the company was equipped and contractually obligated to provide sufficient water pressure and supply to prevent the fire’s spread and sought damages for the loss.

## Issues

1. Whether the warehouse owner could sue as a third-party beneficiary for breach of the water company’s contract with the city.
2. Whether the water company owed the warehouse owner a common-law duty in tort for negligent failure to supply adequate water pressure for firefighting.
3. Whether a regulatory statute governing waterworks corporations created a statutory duty enforceable by an individual property owner through a damages action.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
- The plaintiff could not recover on a third-party beneficiary theory because the city–utility contract did not show an intent to make the utility answerable in damages to individual members of the public.
- The plaintiff could not recover in tort because the alleged wrong was nonfeasance in performing a public contract, not an affirmative act creating a new risk, and recognizing such liability would expose the utility to indeterminate liability to an indeterminate class.
- The plaintiff could not recover under the statute because it did not manifest legislative intent to create a private right of action in damages for individuals harmed by inadequate hydrant service.

## Legal Principles

- A contractor providing a public service under a municipal contract is not liable in contract to individual members of the public absent clear contractual intent that the promisor assume a direct duty to make reparation to those individuals.
- For a nonparty to enforce a public contract, the benefit must be “primary and immediate,” not merely incidental to the agreement between the municipality and the contractor.
- Failure to confer a promised public benefit (nonfeasance) does not, without more, create a tort duty to all foreseeably affected persons; liability is limited where recognition would create open-ended exposure to widespread claims.
- General regulatory statutes governing utility obligations are not read to create private damages actions unless the legislature clearly indicates such a remedy.

## Conclusion

The court held that a water company’s alleged failure to provide adequate hydrant pressure under its contract with a city did not give an individual property owner a claim in contract, tort, or statute absent a clear contractual or legislative intent to create a direct, privately enforceable duty.


H.R. Moch Co. v. Rensselaer Water Co., 247 N.Y. 160, 159 N.E. 896 (N.Y. 1928)