Lampley v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.

• Decision Date: 16 March 1905
• Parties: LAMPLEY v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

50 S.E. 773

71 S.C. 156

LAMPLEY v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 16, 1905

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Darlington County Townsend, Judge.

Action by John C. Lampley against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

J. T Barron, Willcox & Willcox, and Woods & Macfarlan, for appellant. Geo. W. Brown and Stevenson & Matheson, for respondent.

GARY A. J.

The complaint sets forth two causes of action. The first alleges damages arising from the negligence of the defendant in the construction of its railroad through the lands described in the complaint, whereby the Pee Dee river was obstructed and made to overflow said lands, thereby injuring them and the crops thereon growing. The second contains similar allegations, except it does not allege negligence. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $872.50.

The first question that will be considered is whether his honor the presiding judge erred in charging the jury that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to prove negligence in order to recover under the second cause of action. This cause of action was based upon the act of 1897 entitled "An act to make railroad corporations liable for damages resulting to land owners, from the wrongful obstruction of water courses." That act is incorporated in the Code of Laws of 1902 as section 2041, and is as follows: "Railroad corporations shall be liable to land owners for all damages resulting from the wrongful obstruction of water courses. by such corporations, and it shall not be necessary to allege and prove, that such damages resulted from the negligent construction of the road or other works of such corporations but any person who is damaged shall be entitled to recover as in actions against individuals, upon showing the wrongful obstruction of such water courses." Section 1456 of the Code of Laws of 1902 relates to actions against individuals and is as follows: "No person shall be permitted or allowed to make or keep up any dams or banks to stop the course of any waters, so as to overflow the lands of another person, without the consent of such person first had and obtained; nor shall any person be permitted or allowed to let off any reserved water to injure the crops upon the grounds of other persons." Prior to the act of 1897, it was decided in the case of Wallace v. R. R., 34 S.C. 62, 12 S.E. 815, that a railroad corporation was not liable in damages for the obstruction of a water course, unless the damages resulted from negligence in the construction of its road or other works. The words in that statute, that any person who is damaged shall be entitled to recover as in actions against individuals, require us to consider the law relative to actions against individuals for obstructing water courses. Turning to section 1456 of the Code of Laws of 1902, we find that an individual may obstruct a water course, so as to overflow the lands of another, provided he obtains the consent of the other individual. The defendant's railroad was completed through the said lands 10 or 12 years ago, and, of course, prior to the act of 1897. When the defendant acquired its right of way through said lands, it also acquired the right to obstruct water courses, and was only liable for the obstruction when the plaintiff alleged and proved negligence in the construction of its road or other works. Nunnamaker v. Water Power Co., 47 S.C. 487, 25 S.E. 757, 34 L. R. A. 222, 58 Am. St. Rep. 905; Jones v. Ry. Co., 67 S.C. 181, 45 S.E. 188. The defendant acquired the right of way (and with it the right to obstruct water courses) either by a grant from the plaintiff or those under whom he claims, or under condemnation proceedings. Either mode is the...