Strauch v. Pittsburgh

Citations

• 70 Pa. Super. 251
• 1918 Pa. Super. LEXIS 223

Syllabus

<p>Waters — Diversion—Construction of road — Municipality.</p> <p>Where a city constructs ,a road in a public park along the face of a hill, and carries the water from the upper side of the road by ditches to the lower side, and then down the hill by drains, and one of the drains breaks, with the result that a large volume of water which would naturally have flowed over the face of the hill was discharged against buildings producing serious damage, the owner of the buildings may recover from the city the loss sustained.</p> <p>It is not improper for the court in such a case to refuse to charge that “if the jury believe that defendant did not collect the surface water in large and undue quantities, and conduct same into plaintiff's property, the plaintiff cannot recover.”</p> <p>In such a case a judgment on a verdict for plaintiff will not be reversed because the court admitted evidence as to the cost of a retaining wall necessary to protect the property against future slides of earth, where the uncontradicted evidence as to the extent of the injury by the overflow showed damage much in excess of the amount of the verdict.</p> <p>Waters — Diversion—Damages—Opinion of witnesses.</p> <p>In an action against a city to recover damages to buildings by the diversion of waters, it is not reversible error to permit a witness to testify to the cost of repair necessary to restore the buildings in a “lump sum,” where it appears that the witness was a builder and contractor, and competent to testify on the subject. If the defendant in such a ease desired detailed information or to test the accuracy of the knowledge of the witness, that could have been done on cross-examination.</p>