Eckman v. Lehigh & Wilkes-Barre Coal Co.

Citations

• 50 Pa. Super. 427
• 1912 Pa. Super. LEXIS 69

Syllabus

<p>Mines and mining — Deposit of culm — Pollution of stream — Injuries to land — Damages.</p> <p>1. The proprietor of a mining operation has no right to discharge culm and other refuse of the mine into a stream, or to leave it where it will be carried, by ordinary floods, onto the land of other persons. If he does so dispose of it, he renders himself liable for any damages resulting therefrom to such owner. And, where the material is unlawfully put into the stream, the fact that an extraordinary flood was a contributing cause in carrying it onto the plaintiff’s land does not relieve the tort feasor from responsibility for his wrongful act.</p> <p>2. A joint action cannot be maintained against several proprietors of coal operations acting independently, who thus east culm into a stream, which is washed onto the land of another, but each is liable for the proportion of damages he caused, and that only.</p> <p>3. The difficulty of ascertaining with mathematical exactness the proportion of damages caused by each tort feasor — a difficulty caused by himself — is not ground for denying the plaintiff the right to recover a substantial sum; evidence which reasonably tends to show the relative proportion, and is the best evidence of which the case is susceptible, is sufficient to warrant submission of the question to the jury under appropriate instructions.</p> <p>4. In such a case, even if the evidence of substantial damages is insufficient, the plaintiff may recover nominal damages.</p> <p>5. Where a legal right has been invaded, and substantial damages claimed, the extent of which cannot be ascertained with certainty, nominal damages may be recovered.</p> <p>Practice, C. P. — Judgment n. o. v. — Act of April 1905, P. L. B86.</p> <p>6. Under the Act of April 22,1905, P. L. 286, if it appear that there is a conflict of evidence on a material fact, or any reason why there cannot be a binding direction, then there can be no judgment entered against the verdict.</p>