Hunter v. Pelham Mills

Citations

• 52 S.C. 279
• 29 S.E. 727
• 1898 S.C. LEXIS 77

Syllabus

<p>1. Nonsuit. — There was some evidence to support the allegations of plaintiff that his damages resulted from the raising of the floodgates by defendant, and nonsuit was properly refused.</p> <p>2. Jury. — Negugence is a mixed question of law and fact, and should be submitted to the jury, under proper instructions from the Court.</p> <p>8. Dams — Waters and Water Rights. — The owner of a dam has the right to raise the floodgates therein only to protect his own property, when such necessity is caused by a rise in the stream that could not have been anticipated by one of ordinary prudence and foresight. ■</p> <p>4. Ibid. — Ibid.—Charge.—Refusal to charge the request that the jury-must be satisfied that plaintiff’s damage was caused by negligence of defendant in raising his floodgates before they can find for plaintiff, proper under the facts in this case.</p> <p>5. Peeadings. — Complaint alleges, in effect, that defendant acted “wilfully” in raising its floodgates.</p> <p>6. Charge — Act oe God. — Refusal to charge defendant’s request as to damages occurring “coiucidently” from the act of God and the negligence of defendant, proper in the form in which presented.</p> <p>7. Dams — Water and Water Rights. — Dams must be so constructed as to receive, if necessary, the water that would originate from such rains as would be reasonably expected by a man of ordinary prudence and foresight.</p>