Johnson v. White

• Decision Date: 09 June 1904
• Citation: 26 R.I. 207,58 A. 658
• Parties: JOHNSON v. WHITE, City Treasurer.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

58 A. 658

26 R.I. 207

JOHNSON

v. WHITE, City Treasurer.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 9, 1904.

Trespass on the case by William R. Johnson against J. Ellis White, city treasurer.Defendantpetitions for a new trial.Denied.

Argued before TILLINGHAST, DOUGLAS, and BLODGETT, JJ.

Page & Page & dishing, for plaintiff.

Edward W. Blodgett, for defendant.

TILLINGHAST, J.This action is brought to recover damages which the plaintiff claims to have sustained by reason of the turning of surface water upon his land by the acts of the defendant city.The declaration alleges that the defendant constructed a large culvert or drain at the junction of Nashua and Ann Mary streets, and thereby collected quantities of surface water, and discharged the same artificially in a channel over certain intervening land onto a large tract of land belonging to the plaintiff.It also alleges that the water so discharged was far in excess of the amount that would have been discharged upon the plaintiff's premises if said culvert or drain had not been constructed as aforesaid, and that, by reason of its being collected as aforesaid and flowing across plaintiff's premises, it washed out a deep channel across the same, and rendered a part thereof unfit for tillage or pasturage, and decreased the value thereof.At the trial of the case in the common pleas division the plaintiff recovered a verdict in the sum of $500, and the defendant now petitions for a new trial on the grounds that no cause of action is shown, and that the verdict was against the evidence, in this: that no evidence was produced by the plaintiff to show that water was collected from any area and turned onto plaintiff's land, from which area the surface water did not flow thereon before the streets in question were laid out.The defendant also claims that the damages are excessive.

As the evidence submitted fails to show that any appreciable amount of surface water was collected and turned upon the plaintiff's land, by reason of the construction of the culvert or drain aforesaid, in excess of what would have flowed thereon by reason of the natural contour of the adjoining land, as related to that of the plaintiff, the only question of law presented is whether the plaintiff has any cause of action.The defendant's counsel contends that, as there has been no diversion of surface water, other than that which would naturally have found its way to and upon the plaintiff's land, had not said drain been built, the city cannot be held liable for any damages in the premises.He argues that, in view of this fact, the case does not fall within the rule laid down by this court in Inman v. Tripp, 11 R. I. 520, 23 Am. Rep. 520, which is relied on by the plaintiff, in so far as the general principle involved is concerned, as sustaining his position.It is true, the facts in that case were quite different from those in the case at bar.There the city, by changing the grade of certain streets, caused surface water to be collected from a wide area, and to flow upon the plaintiff's land and into his cellar and well, and the court held that it was liable in damages therefor.In the case at barthe defendant has only collected such surface water as would have found its way upon the plaintiff's premises by natural causes as aforesaid, and hence we are asked to hold that the rule referred to is not controlling.

We think, however, that the principle involved in the Inman Case is applicable here.That principle, briefly stated, is this: That no one has a right to collect surface water in any considerable quantity upon his own premises, and then turn the same in a concentrated form upon the premises of his neighbor in such a manner as to cause him damage.Not that an owner of land may not so change the grade or surface thereof as to cause surface water to flow in a different direction from what it did before the natural contour thereof was changed, for this such owner doubtless may lawfully do.But he may not collect and concentrate such water, by means of drains or otherwise, and then turn it upon his neighbor's land in a volume.And the law doubtless is that a city has no greater power over its...