Akin v. St. Croix Lumber Company
| Decision Date | 19 December 1902 |
| Docket Number | 13,228 - (168) |
| Citation | 92 N.W. 537,88 Minn. 119 |
| Parties | H. S. AKIN v. ST. CROIX LUMBER COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Pine county to recover from defendant $500 damages for the flooding of plaintiff's land, caused by the alleged negligent operation by defendant of certain dams maintained by it in Willow and Kettle rivers. The case was tried before Crosby, J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $200. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appealed. Reversed.
Flooding Land -- Negligence.
The evidence offered and received at the trial of this action brought to recover damages alleged to have been caused by the negligent management and operation of certain reservoir dams by defendant, a logdriving company, whereby plaintiff's land was overflowed and flooded, held to have been sufficient to support the verdict in plaintiff's favor.
Expert Opinion.
The opinion of a witness, as an expert, as to what produced this overflow and flooding, should not have been received in evidence. This was for the jury to determine from all of the facts and circumstances appearing at the trial.
J. N Searles, for appellant.
J. N. Castle, for respondent.
The defendant, a corporation, had for a number of years prior to the bringing of this action maintained and operated a system of reservoir dams on Willow river, in this state; the object being to raise and accumulate water, and then to use these accumulations for log-driving purposes. Plaintiff's land is on the river, some eight miles above one of these dams, and about twenty miles below another; and he brought this action to recover damages said to have resulted from flooding of his premises by reason of the negligent operation and management of these two dams in the spring of 1901, while defendant was driving a large and unusual quantity of logs. The verdict was for plaintiff.
1. We have made a careful examination of the large amount of evidence contained in the record, and have come to the conclusion that on the facts, as shown, the verdict could and should be upheld. But we do not sustain the contention of plaintiff's counsel that the evidence was overwhelmingly in favor of his client, for our impression is that it preponderated the other way. However, in view of the fact that a new trial must be had for an error of law, we need not state our reasons for this opinion. This disposes of the first assignment of error.
2. We see no error in the ruling of the court to which the second assignment is directed, and no discussion thereof is needed.
3. The third assignment is addressed to certain testimony which the court below allowed to be given by a witness named Armstrong by profession a civil engineer, who also had considerable knowledge of, and practical experience with, hydraulics. Counsel for plaintiff propounded to this witness...
To continue reading
Request your trial