Brown v. Pine Creek Railway Co.

Citations

• 183 Pa. 38
• 38 A. 401
• 1897 Pa. LEXIS 712

Syllabus

<p>Waters — Extraordinary flood — Act of Godr — Evidence— Question for jury ■ — Railroads.</p> <p>In determining whether a flood is ordinary or extraordinary, the jury must consider what should be expected in that particular stream, taking into account its character, the adjacent territory and previous floods.</p> <p>In an action against a railroad company to recover damages for injuries to land caused by the breaking of a culvert during a flood, a finding of the jury that the flood was an ordinary one will be sustained where the evidence for the plaintiffs, although contradicted, tended to show that in a period of forty-two years, including the flood in question, there had occurred five floods in the stream of about equal force and volume of water.</p> <p>Railroads — Construction of works — Negligence—Damages.</p> <p>A railroad company is bound to bring to the execution of its works the engineering knowledge and skill ordinarily known and practiced in the construction of such works. If it constructs a culvert so unskilfully and negligently as to be insufficient to vent the ordinary highwater of the stream, the company will be liable for the injury thereby caused.</p> <p>Railroads — Land damages — Construction of works — Release.</p> <p>In an action against a railroad company to recover damages for injuries caused to land by the breaking of a culvert, the railroad company offered in evidence a release by the plaintiff of all damages “ by reason of the location, construction and operation of” the railroad. The company offered no evidence as to the time when the lease was executed, but relied upon certain vague statements of the plaintiffs to show that it was executed after the construction of the culvert. The jury found specially that it was executed prior to the construction of the culvert. Held, that a judgment for the plaintiffs should be sustained.</p>