Vautier v. Atlantic Refining Co.

Citations

• 231 Pa. 8
• 79 A. 814
• 1911 Pa. LEXIS 783

Syllabus

<p>Nuisance — Oil refining — Negligence—Evidence—Damages.</p> <p>1. In an action to recover damages for injuries to growing crops of vegetables alleged to have been caused by noxious products from an oil refinery, the plaintiff is not bound to prove negligence on the part of the defendant company in the operation of its works. The action in such a case is for damages occasioned by the maintenance of a nuisance.</p> <p>2. Where land is used for manufacturing purposes the maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non lades applies.</p> <p>3. In aii action against an oil refining company to recover damages for injuries to crops alleged to have been caused by noxious fumes, the measure of damages is the value of the crops alleged to have been destroyed.</p> <p>4. In such a case where a witness for the defendant had put the plaintiffs in the position of chronic eomplainers, it is competent to ask him upon cross-examination whether he had not received complaints from other persons than the plaintiffs.</p> <p>• 5. In an action for damages for nuisance it is not permissible to permit, a witness to testify against objection that the defendant company. had annual argreements with people other than the plaintiffs, in the vicinity, to compensate them for damages done by the smoke from its works.</p> <p>6. It is error in such a case to reject testimony offered by the defendant to show that the vegetation at the same place showed substantially the same kind of injury in subsequent seasons when the works of the defendant were not in operation.</p>