## Facts

- Russell and Thelma Veach owned and operated a small market in Phoenix.
- A fire broke out on January 23, 1962, and the market was completely destroyed.
- The City of Phoenix operated a municipal water system for the benefit of city inhabitants.
- The Veaches alleged the City failed to supply or make available water for firefighting at or near the market when the fire occurred.
- The Veaches alleged that, before the fire, they requested the City install and maintain a fire hydrant near the market for fire protection, and the City negligently failed to do so.
- The Veaches sought damages for property loss, asserting negligence and breach of duty based on the City’s failure to provide water and hydrant service for fire protection.

## Issues

1. Whether a municipality that operates a water system and undertakes to furnish fire protection owes a duty to provide individual property owners reasonable fire protection, including comparable access to water and hydrants, relative to similarly situated areas.
2. Whether the complaint stated a claim sufficient to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the claim against the City.
- The court held the City had no absolute duty to furnish water for fire protection to all inhabitants.
- The court held that once a city undertakes responsibility for furnishing fire protection, it must provide each person or property owner reasonable protection comparable to that provided to others in similar areas under like circumstances.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings because the pleaded facts could support liability under this qualified duty.

## Legal Principles

- A municipality is not universally obligated to provide water for fire protection.
- When a municipality undertakes to furnish fire protection, it assumes a duty to provide reasonably comparable fire protection to similarly situated persons and properties within the municipality.
- At the pleading stage, allegations that a city failed to provide water or hydrant access for fire protection, despite operating a water system and providing comparable protection elsewhere, can state a tort claim and should not be dismissed as legally insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court recognized a conditional municipal duty: although the City was not required to provide fire-protection water in the first instance, once it undertook to furnish fire protection it had to provide reasonably comparable protection to similarly situated property owners, making dismissal at the pleading stage improper.


Veach v. City of Phoenix, 427 P.2d 335 (Ariz. 1967)