Knowles v. Pennsylvania Railroad

Citations

• 175 Pa. 623
• 34 A. 974
• 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1298

Syllabus

<p>Nuisance — Obstruction of highway — Fence—Railroad.</p> <p>An ordinance passed in 1887 authorized a change of grade of a highway. In 1891 a railroad company built a fence which obstructed the highway. In 1893, the fence was removed and for five months thereafter the public used the highway as it had done before the erection of the fence. In 1894 the railroad company raised its roadbed so as to conform to the grade established by the ordinance of 1887. Held, (1) that the erection of the fence was in no way connected with or incident to the raising of the roadbed to conform to the revised grades; (2) that therefore in an action brought to recover special damages caused by the erection of the fence the question whether the city or the railroad company was liable could not be raised.</p> <p>Nuisance — Public nuisance — Special damage.</p> <p>A private action for a public nuisance is maintainable by one who suffers therefrom some particular1 loss or damage beyond that suffered by him in common with all others affected by the nuisance. Interference with a common right does not of itself afford a cause of action by an individual injured, but special or particular damage consequent on the interference does.</p> <p>A railroad company erected a fence across a highway. At the time the fence was erected plaintiff had a contract to haul five thousand loads of dirt at 15 cents a load from one side of the railroad to the other, and he was actually engaged in hauling the same. The natural route from the place where the dirt was taken to the place of deposit was -over the obstructed road. At least three loads of dirt could be delivered over this route in the time required to deliver one load over the route the plaintiff was compelled to take after the fence was erected. It was worth 40 cents to deliver a load over the latter route while 15 cents was sufficient compensation for delivering a load over the former. Held, that the plaintiff suffered special injury by reason of the con