Coyne v. Miss. & R. R. Boom Co.

• Decision Date: 14 June 1898
• Citation: 72 Minn. 533,75 N.W. 748
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: COYNE v MISSISSIPPI & R. R. BOOM CO.

72 Minn. 533

75 N.W. 748

COYNEvMISSISSIPPI & R. R. BOOM CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 14, 1898.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. If a party, in the exercise of a legal right,-more especially one conferred by statute,-does an injury to another's property, he is not liable for damages, unless they were caused by his want of the care and skill ordinarily exercised in like cases.

2. The right of passage on a navigable stream is a common and paramount one, but must be exercised with due regard to the rights of riparian owners, and with ordinary care and skill. Floating logs in such a stream may cause damage to the estate of such owners; but if driven in an ordinarily careful, prudent manner, the party driving is not liable for damages which may result to the riparian owners.

Appeal from district court, Anoka county; James C. Tarbox, Judge.

Action by Clara D. Coyne against the Mississippi & Rum River Boom Company to recover for damages caused to her farm by defendant's negligent acts. Verdict for plaintiff. From an order denying its motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed.

John B. Atwater, for appellant.

E. Hammons, for respondent.

COLLINS, J.

Plaintiff had a verdict in an action brought to recover for injuries claimed to have been caused by reason of defendant's construction and maintenance of certain piling, piers, and booms in the Mississippi river, above plaintiff's farm, whereby huge quantities of logs and ice were accumulated and held back in the spring of 1897, and then, because of the breaking away of the piling, piers, and booms, alleged to have resulted from defendant's negligent management and operation thereof, suddenly precipitated down the river, and upon plaintiff's farm, by reason of which soil and trees along the banks were swept away and destroyed. Defendant's appeal is from an order denying its motion for a new trial, and the assignments of error go to the claim of counsel that the court should have dismissed the case when plaintiff rested; that there was error in the admission of certain evidence in rebuttal; that the charge to the jury was erroneous in respect to the grounds upon which plaintiff could recover, and also in reference to the time up to which damages might be estimated in case damages were awarded to her.

The defendant is a corporation duly organized and acting under the provisions of Sp. Laws Minn. 1857, c. 60, and several amendatory acts. Its power and authority to build and construct piling, piers, and booms in the river mentioned,-a navigable stream,-and its right to handle and drive logs, under its franchise, stand conceded. It was exercising a lawful privilege when it erected piling and piers and maintained its booms at the point in question, but it was bound to exercise this privilege with due regard to the concurrent rights of riparian owners, above and below, to the use of their lands. And, as before noticed, the cause of action set forth in the complaint was based upon an allegation of defendant's negligence in the management and operation of its works above plaintiff's farm. A part of the evidence was directed towards establishing that a great quantity of logs and ice gathered at defendant's piling, piers, and booms, causing a jam, and then broke loose, rushing down in a mass, and tearing and washing out more or less of the soil along the shores of the stream where it flowed through the farm; and a part was produced for the purpose of showing that defendant was careless and negligent in the management and operation of its booms, and carelessly and negligently allowed the jam to form, and then to break; and the court charged the jury upon this branch of the case. But it went further, and charged, in substance, that if the tearing and washing away of the soil along the...