City of Cushing v. High
| Decision Date | 24 September 1918 |
| Docket Number | 9447. |
| Citation | 175 P. 229,73 Okla. 151,1918 OK 538 |
| Parties | CITY OF CUSHING v. HIGH. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
One who is injured by the wrongful act of another may recover any pecuniary loss sustained by reason of such injury.
In this jurisdiction it is well settled that where the injury complained of is susceptible of remedy or abatement by the expenditure of money or labor, that the owner is entitled to recover only such damages as has accrued on account of the impaired or lost use of his property up to the time of the suit.
He is also generally entitled to recover compensation for discomfort, annoyance, and personal inconvenience where these are the proximate result of the defendant's wrong.
An instruction which told the jury that the fact that the stream in question was polluted from other sources was not any defense or excuse for the city to add thereto, nor would that fact prevent the owner from recovering any damages caused to him by its act, considered in connection with the other instructions of the case, was proper.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 3. Error from District Court, Payne County; John P. Hickam, Judge.
Suit by N.H. High against the City of Cushing. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
J. M Grubbs, City Atty., of Cushing, for plaintiff in error.
Thomas A. Higgins and Sylvester J. Berton, both of Cushing, for defendant in error.
High sued the city of Cushing to recover damages alleged to have been caused to him by the construction and maintenance of a septic tank in close proximity to his land, on which he resided with his family. This tank was erected in October 1914, and for a time the filter operated successfully, but finally failed to properly perform its function, and the sewerage overflowed and polluted a stream of water which flowed through the land of the defendant in error, and rendered the same incapable of being used for feeding purposes, and the stench therefrom made the property unsuitable for a home for the defendant and his family, and caused to them much discomfort and inconvenience, for which he sued to recover damages in this action. Upon the trial High recovered a judgment for the sum of $750 for the inconvenience and discomfort in the use of his land as a home, and the sum of $250 for the use of his said lots.
The law is well settled in this jurisdiction that where the injury complained of is susceptible of remedy or abatement by the expenditure of money or labor, that the owner is entitled to recover only such damages as has accrued on account of the impaired or lost use of his property up to the time of the suit. Ardmore v. Orr, 35 Okl. 305, 129 P. 867. But one who is injured by the wrongful act of another may recover any pecuniary loss sustained by reason of such injury.
He is also generally entitled to recover compensation for discomfort, annoyance, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial