Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Eldridge

• Decision Date: 28 February 1914
• Docket Number: Case Number: 2323
• Citation: 1914 OK 75,41 Okla. 463,139 P. 254
• Parties: ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO. v. ELDRIDGE.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1914 OK 75

139 P. 254

41 Okla. 463

ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO. v. ELDRIDGE.

Case Number: 2323

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: February 28, 1914

Syllabus

¶0 1. WATERS AND WATER COURSES--Railroads--Damages from Overflow- -Instructions. Where the basis of a cause of action against a railway company is for damages resulting from an overflow caused by the defective construction of embankments, in that no adequate openings were left for the escape of water through its natural channels, a judgment will not be reversed because of a specific instruction as to the defective construction of a bridge over the water course along the line of railroad, although no specific complaint was made of the construction of the bridge in the pleadings, where such instruction has reference to no other defect, except to the inadequacy of the open way through such embankment for the flow of water.

2. APPEAL AND ERROR--Verdict--Evidence. Where the law applicable to the facts material to the issues joined by the pleadings in an action is fairly and fully submitted to the jury by the court, a verdict of a jury based upon conflicting testimony will not be disturbed if it is reasonably supported by the testimony in the case.

3. EMINENT DOMAIN -- Recovery of Damages -- Conclusiveness. The fact that a railroad company acquired a right of way by act of Congress prior to statehood, under the terms of which the land covered by such right of way was appraised and the damages arising from the ordinary inconveniences resulting from a railroad running across one's land were assessed, does not grant to such railroad company an absolute immunity forever against damages resulting to abutting land-owners from a negligent construction of railroad embankments across waterways.

4. LIMITATION OF ACTIONS--Damages from Overflow--Railroad Embankment. An action against a railroad company for damages resulting from an overflow caused by the defective construction of the railroad embankments is not barred by limitation because such embankments have been constructed more than two years prior to the injury, but the time in which such action may be brought dates from the time the injuries are received and damages sustained.

Error from District Court, Noble County; W. M. Bowles, Judge.

Action by J. W. Eldridge against the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Cottingham & Bledsoe, John Devereux, and George M. Green, for plaintiff in error

Henry S. Johnston, for defendant in error

HARRISON, C.

¶1 This was an action by J. W. Eldridge against the A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. for damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of an overflow caused by the negligent construction of defendant's railway in throwing up its embankments in such manner as to cause the water from a certain stream or creek and its tributaries to dam up and flow back over and upon defendant's corn crop, to his damage in the sum of $ 1,969; the specific negligence alleged and relied upon being that the railroad company in constructing its road through Red Rock creek valley crossed said creek and some of its tributaries, traversing a considerable section of country drained by same, and that its embankments, through such section of country and across such tributaries and creeks, were so constructed as not to allow the water of such creeks or the rainfall upon the country drained by such creeks and tributaries, after it had found its way into such creeks, to escape through its natural channels, but caused it to back up and overflow plaintiff's land as aforesaid. The cause was tried at the April term of the district court of Noble county, 1910, resulting in a verdict and judgment against the railroad company for $ 952 and costs of action. From such judgment the railway company appeals upon sixteen assignments of error.

¶2 These assignments are grouped and presented by plaintiff in error under three heads: First, errors in the instructions to the jury; second, the verdict is contrary to law and the evidence in the case; third, that the court erred in not giving an instructed verdict in favor of the railway company, and in not holding that the action was barred by the statute of limitations.

¶3 Under the first group of errors assigned, the alleged errors in the court's instructions were urged, but from an examination of the issues made by the pleadings and the testimony admitted in support of such issues, we find no error in this regard. The instructions, upon the whole, seem altogether fair to plaintiff in error, and to have fully and fairly covered the law applicable to the facts involved. The specific objections urged, however, are that the court instructed the jury in reference to a certain bridge across one of the streams alleged to have been affected by the railway's embankments, and that such instruction was erroneous because at variance with the issues made by the pleadings; and, further, that the court erred in instructing the jury as to surface water, because the issue as to whether such bridge was defectively constructed or not, and the issue as to whether or not the flow of surface water was obstructed by the railway's embankments, were not raised...