Ready v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 16 February 1903
• Citation: 72 S.W. 142,98 Mo. App. 467
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: READY v. MISSOURI PAC. RY. CO.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL>

72 S.W. 142

98 Mo. App. 467

READY v. MISSOURI PAC. RY. CO.^*

Court of Appeals at Kansas City, Missouri.

February 16, 1903.

SURFACE WATER—DISCHARGE ON ANOTHER'S PREMISES—MEASURE OF DAMAGES— EXCESSIVE DAMAGES.

1. Where a railroad company cut a ditch, and put in a culvert under its track, thereby causing surface water, flowing onto the railroad from higher ground beyond, and which, the evidence tended to show, had before such interference found its way along ditches on the sides of the track until it spread out over the surface generally, to rush through such culvert and onto plaintiff's premises, covering her ground, filling her cellar and cistern, and destroying her grass, it was liable for the damage.

2. Where one allows surface water to collect on his premises, and wrongfully discharges it onto the premises of another, the latter is entitled to recover the actual damage sustained by him up to the beginning of the action, and the difference between the value of the estate just before and just after the injury does not furnish the measure of damages.

3. In estimating the damages, the jury could consider any and all injuries resulting from the different overflows caused to the house and basement and outhouses, as well as any injury to the lot itself, by the deposit of mud and clay thereon.

4. Defendant wrongfully discharged surface water onto plaintiff's premises, covering her ground, filling her cellar and cistern, and destroying

her grass. Held, that a verdict of $400 was not excessive.

Appeal from circuit court, Jackson county; E. P. Gates, Judge.

Action by Margaret Ready against the Missouri Pacific Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Elijah Robinson, for appellant. Charles R. Pence, for respondent.

ELLISON, J.

This is an action for damages caused by defendant discharging surface water onto plaintiff's real property and improvements thereon. The judgment was for the plaintiff in the sum of $400.

In order to determine the legal question applicable to this case, it is only necessary to state in a very general way the cause of the complaint as made out by evidence in plaintiff's behalf. Plaintiff's property is situated across an alley from defendant's line of railroad. Water flows from higher ground beyond onto the railroad, and is received by ditches alongside of the track. There was evidence tending to show that this water, prior to defendant's interference, found its way on along the sides of the track until it spread out over the surface generally. The evidence also tended to show that defendant could have led the water off in the direction of certain catch-basins maintained by the city. However that may be, it was shown that defendant cut a ditch and put in a culvert under its track at the "head of the alley," which caused the water to rush through such culvert, and thence across the alley onto plaintiff's premises; covering her ground, filling her cellar and cistern, and destroying her grass. The law in such state of case is plain and well understood. Defendant, as it contends, had a right to protect itself from injury by surface water. But it had no right to allow that water to collect on its premises, and...