Reed v. State

• Decision Date: 28 February 1888
• Citation: 108 N.Y. 407,15 N.E. 735
• Parties: REED v. STATE. COSTELLO et al. v. STATE. POLAND v. STATE.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

108 N.Y. 407

15 N.E. 735

REED

v.STATE.

COSTELLO et al.

v.STATE.

POLAND

v.STATE.

Court of Appeals of New York.

February 28, 1888.

Appeals from an award of the board of claims.

These are cases of claims filed with the board of claims against the state of New York, for damages caused by water seeping from a canal reservoir through a bank or gravel, and injuring the claimants' lands. The board refused to allow the claims, and the claimants appealed. The opinion was filed in the case of Reed v. State.

The liability of the state is the same as would be that of an individual or corporation under similar circumstances. Sipple v. State, 99 N. Y. 284, 1 N. E. Rep. 892, 3 N. E. Rep. 657. The flooding of claimant's land was caused by diverting the water from its natural channel. The liability of the party causing the land of another to be inundated under such circumstances, cannot be doubted. It matters not whether the damage is occasioned by overflow or percolation. Pixley v. Clark, 35 N. Y. 520;Brown v. Bowen, 30 N. Y. 519.

T. E. Hancock, for appellants.

Charles F. Tober, Atty. Gen., for respondent.

RUGER, C. J.

Prior to the year 1873, the state became the owner of about 160 acres of land in the town of La Fayette, Onondaga county, lying in a valley on both sides of Butternut creek. For the purpose of providing a feeder for the Erie canal, it proceeded, through its own agents, without the intervention of contractors, to construct a dam across the valley, by which means a large body of water, covering about 60 or 70 acres of land to a depth of 30 feet or less, was collected in a reservoir, and there retained, and used, as occasion required, for the canal. In the course of the construction of the reservoir a large bed of coarse gravel lying on the westerly side of the dam and extending over four or five acres of land was uncovered and denuded of soil and earth, and left exposed directly to the action of the water upon it. This bed of gravel lay about four or five feet below the level of the spill way of the dam, and when that was filled large quantities of water flowed through the gravel by subterraneous channels, and discharged itself upon the lands of the claimant and others lying below the dam, and inflicted serious damage thereto. The water was first let into the dam in 1874 or 1875, and immediately thereafter appeared upon the premises described, and has so continued to appear and to injure the claimant's land each year since. This claim was filed with the board of appraisers in 1879, and was transferred, together with other claims, to the board of claims, when that body was created by statute in 1883. Upon the trial the board of claims, besides finding the facts above stated, also found that the reservoir, dam, and embankment were constructed, maintained, and operated with great care and diligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents, and servants, and that it does not appear that the damage to lands of claimant is permanent, nor does the amount of any temporary damage he may have sustained appear. As a conclusion of law it found ‘that the state was not bound to assume that a deposit of gravel extended beneath the surface, from the land inside of said reservoir, across other lands, and at a distance of over one hundred rods, to the land of claimant, and to provide absolutely against the percolation of the water from the reservoir through the same,’ and therefore they awarded the claimant nothing.

We are of the opinion that the undisputed evidence in the case shows that the board erred in exempting the state from the imputation of negligence in the construction of the reservoir and its embankments. The liability assumed by the state under chapter 321, laws 1870, embraces all cases of damage occurring to corporations and individuals from the use or management of the canals of the state, or resulting or arising from the negligence or conduct of any officer of the state having charge thereof, or from any accident or other matter or thing connected with the canals, in a case where the facts proved would create a legal liability against the state were the same established in evidence in a court of justice against an individual or corporation, and providing that it is not a case of damages arising from the navigation of the canals. In cases arising under this statute, the state is therefore to be regarded as occupying the same position as an individual, and the inquiry is solely whether the facts proved would render an individual liable, if established against him. The situation of the gravel-bank skirting the western embankment of the reservoir was plainly visible to every one, and was known to the agents of the state while prosecuting the work of construction. Instead of taking precautions to avoid leakage at this point, they continued the work of denudation until many acres were exposed to the action of the water. That water, however situated, will seek its level through any channel open to it, is a natural law with which every one is familiar, and could not have been unknown to the officers having charge of this work. The attempt to collect a large body of water into a limited space surrounded with a porous and gravelly soil, without taking an adequate precaution to confine it to the receptacle prepared for it, was, upon the face of it, an inexecusable act of negligence in those having charge of such work, and cannot be justified under the known laws governing the motion of fluids. Pixley v. Clark, 35 N. Y. 520;Jutte v. Hughes, 67 N. Y. 267;Mairs v. Estate Ass'n, 89 N. Y. 506. Indeed, one of the state engineers upon the work testified that, when they were uncovering the bank on the western side of the reservoir, he observed they were getting into a...