Rielly v. Stephenson
Citations
- 222 Pa. 252
- 70 A. 1097
- 1908 Pa. LEXIS 690
Syllabus
<p>Waters — Surf ace waters — Shutting out the surface flow — Improvement of lots — Damnum absque injuria.</p> <p>The owner of a lot in a city or town, in grading and improving the lot may shut out the surface flow upon his lot without any obligation on his part to prevent it from flowing over the adjacent land, or to lead it by artificial or other means to a sewer or other avenue of escape; but in making the improvement he may not proceed negligently so as to do unnecessary damage to others; nor may he obstruct a natural channel for the flow of the water, or a channel that has acquired the character of an easement; nor may he gather surface water into a body and discharge it on the adjoining land.</p> <p>On a bill in equity it appeared that the parties owned adjoining lots on an opened and paved street in a city. The land was on a sloping hillside so that the surface drainage from rain, etc., ran over both lots from the rear to the front. The defendant improved his lot first and in so doing raised the grade in parts. He did not change the character or direction of the flow nor add to the volume of it, except that in consequence of the raised grade the water which had previously spread over the surface of both lots now ran over plaintiff’s. It did not appear that the defendant was negligent in making the improvement, nor that he closed up any natural channel or any channel acquired by easement. Held, that the defendant was not liable to plaintiff for any damages by reason of an increased flow of water on the plaintiff’s lot.</p>
Judges: Fell, Mesteezat, Mitchell, Pottee, Stewaet
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
20 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Chamberlin v. CiaffoniSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1953-04-22· cited 41×
- Rau v. Wilden Acres, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1954-03-22· cited 33×
- Laform v. Bethlehem TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1985-10-18· cited 30×
- Lamont v. Adams Express Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1919-02-17· cited 24×
- Leiper v. Heywood-Hall Construction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1955-03-14· cited 21×
- City of Tucson v. DunseathArizona Supreme Court· 1914-03-10· cited 13×
- Mason v. LambSupreme Court of Virginia· 1949-04-25· cited 12×
- Wilson v. McCluskeySuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1911-04-22· cited 7×
- Trimmer v. BerkheimerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1915-10-11· cited 5×
- Taylor v. Harrison Construction Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1955-07-21· cited 2×
- White v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1911-04-17· cited 2×
- Flaherty v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1916-07-18· cited 2×
- Shuey v. BechtelLebanon County Court of Common Pleas· 1982-02-17· cited 1×
- Hoffman v. RizzettoLehigh County Court of Common Pleas· 1930-03-10
- Bowers v. PriceYork County Court of Common Pleas· 1945-10-09
- DeStefano v. MeglioPhiladelphia County Court of Common Pleas· 1948-04-28
- Moscufo v. MattiaccioPhiladelphia County Court of Common Pleas· 1948-10-29
- Douglas v. ClarkeDelaware County Court of Common Pleas· 1929-11-01
- Lauff v. Pittsburgh Coal Co.Washington County Court of Common Pleas· 1930-08-18
- Sturges v. School District of City of ChesterDelaware County Court of Common Pleas· 1938-04-09
Cites
3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.