Sebree v. Huntingdon Water Supply Co.

Citations

• 267 Pa. 420
• 110 A. 142
• 1920 Pa. LEXIS 883

Syllabus

<p>Water companies — Damages to land and crops — Raising of dam —Eminent domain — Evidence—Burden of proof — Negligence—■ Transitory damages — Trespasser — Floodgates — Spillways—Necessity for — Judicial notice.</p> <p>1. Where a water company, having the right’of eminent domain, constructs a dam as a permanent structure upon its own land, the injury caused to other land is in its nature permanent, and the right of action therefor vests in him who owned the land when the dam was built. The proper measure of damages, in such case i§ the difference in the market value of the land affected thereby before and after the obstruction of the stream, to which may be added damages for delay, as in other like cases; and that is the proper measure of damages even where the water company takes no steps to condemn the land.</p> <p>2. The same rule applies where an existing dam is permanently increased in height to the damage of riparian owners. In that case, a riparian owner is not entitled to such damages unless it appears that he purchased his land after the dam was raised; and he is limited to such damages only as result from the proper construction and operation of the dam, and not from the water company’s negligence. For the latter he may recover transitory damages to land and crops, but the burden of proof is upon him to show the negligence of the water company.</p> <p>3. In such ease, mere proof that there were no floodgates or spillways in the dam, is not evidence of negligence, when plaintiff fails to prove the necessity of any, or that their absence in any manner contributed to his injury. The court cannot take judicial notice of the necessity for these appliances in the dam in question, and properly withdraw that question from the jury.</p> <p>4. If the water company had been a mere wrongdoer, without the right of eminent domain, it would be liable for transitory damages on the ground of nuisance, regardless of the question of negligence.</p> <p>5. In an action of tres