Soules v. Northern Pacific Railway Company

• Decision Date: 28 January 1916
• Citation: 157 N.W. 823,34 N.D. 7
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

157 N.W. 823

34 N.D. 7

JAMES SOULES and Roy Butler, Copartners, Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Soules & Butler, v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation

Supreme Court of North Dakota

January 28, 1916

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Appeal from the District Court of Stark County, Crawford, J.

Action to recover damages for the flooding of property occasioned by an insufficient culvert. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Watson & Young and E. T. Conmy, for appellant.

The evidence shows that if any waters were obstructed by this defendant and thrown back on the property of plaintiffs, they were mere storm or surface waters, and the defendant cannot be held liable for any damage so caused. 30 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 330; Walker v. New Mexico & S. P. R. Co. 165 U.S. 593, 41 L.Ed. 837, 17 S.Ct. 421, 1 Am. Neg. Rep. 768; Hagge v. Kansas City Southern R. Co. 104 F. 391; Chadeayne v. Robinson, 55 Conn. 345, 3 Am. St. Rep 55, 11 A. 592; Taylor v. Fickas, 64 Ind. 167, 31 Am Rep. 114; Gannon v. Hargadon, 10 Allen, 106, 87 Am Dec. 625; Morrissey v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 38 Neb. 406, 56 N.W. 946, 57 N.W. 522; Swett v. Cutts, 50 N.H. 439, 9 Am. Rep. 276; Bowlsby v. Speer, 31 N.J.L. 351, 86 Am. Dec. 216; Barkley v. Wilcox, 86 N.Y. 140, 40 Am. Rep. 519; Edwards v. Charlotte, C. & A. R. Co. 39 S.C. 472, 22 L.R.A. 246, 39 Am. St. Rep. 746, 18 S.E. 58; Cass v. Dicks, 14 Wash. 75, 53 Am. St. Rep. 859, 44 P. 113.

In jurisdictions where the common-law rule obtains, it is applicable to the obstruction of the flow of surface waters in the construction of railroads. 30 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 332; Walker v. New Mexico & S. P. R. Co. 165 U.S. 593, 41 L.Ed. 837, 17 S.Ct. 421, 1 Am. Neg. Rep. 768; Hannaher v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co. 5 Dak. 1, 37 N.W. 717; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Hammer, 22 Kan. 763, 31 Am. Rep. 216; Brown v. Winona & S.W. R. Co. 53 Minn. 259, 39 Am. St. Rep. 603, 55 N.W. 123; Morrissey v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 38 Neb. 406, 56 N.W. 946, 57 N.W. 522; Baltzeger v. Carolina Midland R. Co. 54 S.C. 242, 71 Am. St. Rep. 789, 32 S.E. 358; O'Connor v. Fond du Lac, A. & P. R. Co. 52 Wis. 526, 38 Am. Rep. 753, 9 N.W. 287.

Under the civil-law rule as to surface waters, the lower landowner is bound to receive the waters which flow from the land above, and cannot cast it back upon his neighbor to his damages. 30 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 326, 329; Livingston v. McDonald, 21 Iowa 160, 89 Am. Dec. 563; Wharton v. Stevens, 84 Iowa 107, 15 L.R.A. 630, 35 Am. St. Rep. 296, 50 N.W. 562.

The common-law rule seems to have been adopted in this state. Gibbs v. Williams, 25 Kan. 214, 37 Am. Rep. 241; Hannaher v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co. 5 Dak. 1, 37 N.W. 717; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Renfro, 52 Kan. 237, 39 Am. St. Rep. 344, 34 P. 802; Carroll v. Rye Twp. 13 N.D. 458, 101 N.W. 894; Albers v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 95 Neb. 506, 145 N.W. 1013.

Sloughs and ravines, through which waters collected from surrounding territory pass in times of freshets from rains and melting snow, but which at other times are dry, are not to be considered water courses. 30 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, pp. 350, 351; Swett v. Cutts, 50 N.H. 439, 9 Am. Rep. 276; Ashley v. Wolcott, 11 Cush. 192; Hoyt v. Hudson, 27 Wis. 656, 9 Am. Rep. 473, 41 Wis. 105, 22 Am. Rep. 714; Angell, Watercourses, 5th ed., § 4; Barnes v. Sabron, 10 Nev. 218, 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 673; Howard v. Ingersoll, 13 How. 427, 14 L.Ed. 209; Gibbs v. Williams, 25 Kan. 214, 37 Am. Rep. 241; Weis v. Madison, 75 Ind. 241, 39 Am. Rep. 135; Barkley v. Wilcox, 86 N.Y. 140, 40 Am. Rep. 519.

There is no evidence to show that the damage which plaintiffs suffered was caused by the negligence of defendant, or that any act of defendant was the proximate cause of the injury. The defendant's only duty was to build a culvert in the ordinary and usual manner sufficient to take care of the ordinary storm waters which might accumulate or pass through it, through the hollow or ravine or drainage channel. Hughes v. Anderson, 68 Ala. 280, 44 Am. Rep. 147; Nininger v. Norwood, 72 Ala. 277, 47 Am. Rep. 412; Savannah, A. & M. R. Co. v. Buford, 106 Ala. 303, 17 So. 395; Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Shahan, 116 Ala. 302, 22 So. 509, 115 Ala. 181, 67 Am. St. Rep. 20, 22 So. 449; Southern R. Co. v. Plott, 131 Ala. 312, 31 So. 33; Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Wachter, 123 Ill. 440, 5 Am. St. Rep. 532, 15 N.E. 279; Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. v. Davis, 68 Md. 281, 6 Am. St. Rep. 440, 11 A. 822; Sullens v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 74 Iowa 659, 7 Am. St. Rep. 501, 38 N.W. 545; Harrison v. Great Northern R. Co. 3 Hurlst. & C. 236, 33 L. J. Exch. N. S. 266, 10 Jur. N. S. 992, 10 L. T. N. S. 621, 12 Week. Rep. 1081, 25 Eng. Rul. Cas. 411; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Keyton, 148 Ala. 675, 41 So. 918; Matteson v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co. 40 Pa. S.Ct. 234; Pittsburg, Ft. W. & C. R. Co. v. Gilleland, 56 Pa. 445, 94 Am. Dec. 98; American Locomotive Co. v. Hoffman, 105 Va. 343, 6 L.R.A.(N.S.) 252, 54 S.E. 25, 8 Ann. Cas. 773; Illinois C. R. Co. v. Bethel, 11 Ill.App. 17; Dorman v. Ames, 12 Minn. 451, Gil. 347; Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Thillman, 143 Ill. 127, 36 Am. St. Rep. 359, 32 N.E. 529; Brown v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 195 F. 1007; State ex rel. Trimble v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. M. R. Co. 28 N.D. 621, 150 N.W. 463; Carroll v. Rye Twp. 13 N.D. 458, 101 N.W. 894; Hannaher v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co. 5 Dak. 24, 37 N.W. 717.

The burden of proving negligence in a tort action is on him who asserts it, and such rule has full application here. Cameron v. Great Northern R. Co. 8 N.D. 124, 77 N.W. 1016, 5 Am. Neg. Rep. 454; Whitney v. Clifford, 57 Wis. 156, 14 N.W. 927; Shearm. & Redf. Neg. §§ 57, 58; Nason v. West, 78 Me. 253, 3 A. 911, 15 Am. Neg. Cas. 273; Meehan v. Great Northern R. Co. 13 N.D. 443, 101 N.W. 183; Fredericks v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 225 Pa. 23, 73 A. 965; Memphis & C. R. Co. v. Reeves, 10 Wall. 176, 19 L.Ed. 909; Treichel v. Great Northern R. Co. 80 Minn. 96, 82 N.W. 1110; Brown v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 195 F. 1007; Berninger v. Sunbury, H. & W. R. Co. 203 Pa. 516, 53 A. 361.

The acts charged here are not shown to have been the proximate cause of the injury. Karchner v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 218 Pa. 309, 67 A. 644; Oakley Mills Mfg. Co. v. Neese, 54 Ga. 459; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Padgett, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 435, 37 S.W. 92; Kansas City, M. & B. R. Co. v. Smith, 72 Miss. 677, 27 L.R.A. 762, 48 Am. St. Rep. 579, 17 So. 78; Brown v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 195 F. 1012; Sheldon v. Hudson R. R. Co. 29 Barb. 228; Longabaugh v. Virginia City & T. R. Co. 9 Nev. 296; Smith v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. 37 Mo. 295; Omaha & R. Valley R. Co. v. Clark, 35 Neb. 867, 23 L.R.A. 509, 53 N.W. 970; Kilpatrick v. Richardson, 37 Neb. 731, 56 N.W. 481; White v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 1 S.D. 330, 9 L.R.A. 824, 47 N.W. 146; Balding v. Andrews, 12 N.D. 277, 93 N.W. 305, 14 Am. Neg. Rep. 615; Scherer v. Schlaberg, 18 N.D. 421, 24 L.R.A.(N.S.) 520, 122 N.W. 1000; Andrews v. Kinsel, 114 Ga. 390, 88 Am. St. Rep. 25, 40 S.E. 300; 8 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law 2d ed. 580.

A negligent act, which would not have resulted in injury except for the intervention of an independent cause, does not give rise to a cause of action. Schwartz v. California Gas & Electric Corp. 163 Cal. 398, 125 P. 1044; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Simpson, 31 Ohio C. C. 349; Coleman v. Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co. 36 Mo.App. 476; Garraghty v. Hartstein, 26 N.D. 148, 143 N.W. 390; Meehan v. Great Northern R. Co. 13 N.D. 443, 101 N.W. 183; Balding v. Andrews, 12 N.D. 267, 96 N.W. 305, 14 Am. Neg. Rep. 615; Scherer v. Schlaberg, 18 N.D. 421, 24 L.R.A.(N.S.) 520, 122 N.W. 1000.

The lower property owner does not have to make provision to care for the waters of an extraordinary and unusual flood or storm. He is only required to provide a way or culvert sufficient to take care of the waters of the ordinary rain and snow. Such is the American doctrine. China v. Southwick, 12 Me. 238; Bell v. M'Clintock, 9 Watts, 119, 34 Am. Dec. 507; Lehigh Bridge Co. v. Lehigh Coal & Nav. Co. 4 Rawle, 9, 26 Am. Dec. 111; Everett v. Hydraulic Flume Tunnel Co. 23 Cal. 225, 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 589; Hoffman v. Tuolumne County Water Co. 10 Cal. 413; Wolf v. St. Louis Independent Water Co. 10 Cal. 541, 10 Mor. Min. Rep. 636; Lapham v. Curtis, 5 Vt. 371, 26 Am. Dec. 310; Higgins v. Chesapeake & D. Canal Co. 3 Harr. (Del.) 411; Morris Canal & Bkg. Co. v. Ryerson, 27 N.J.L. 457; Tenney v. Miner's Ditch Co. 7 Cal. 335, 11 Mor. Min. Rep. 31; Richardson v. Kier, 34 Cal. 63, 91 Am. Dec. 681, 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 612; Shrewsbury v. Smith, 12 Cush. 177; Hannaher v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co. 5 Dak. 23, 37 N.W. 717; 1 Thomp. Neg. 2d ed. § 72; Pittsburg, Ft. W. & C. R. Co. v. Gilleland, 56 Pa. 445, 94 Am. Dec. 98; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Buel, 76 Neb. 420, 107 N.W. 590; Southern R. Co. v. Plott, 131 Ala. 312, 31 So. 33; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Sulphur Spring Independent School Dist. 96 Pa. 65, 42 Am. Rep. 529; Price v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. 47 Ore. 350, 83 P. 843; Nashville & C. R. Co. v. David, 6 Heisk. 261, 19 Am. Rep. 594; American Locomotive Co. v. Hoffman, 105 Va. 343, 6 L.R.A.(N.S.) 252, 54 S.E. 25, 8 Ann. Cas. 773; Brown v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 195 F. 1007; Egan v. Central Vermont R. Co. 81 Vt. 141, 16 L.R.A.(N.S.) 928, 130 Am. St. Rep. 1031, 69 A. 732.

This rule is liberally construed and applied in case of railroads,--they not being held so strictly liable, because of the necessary construction of culverts and embankments, unless it is shown that they are improperly constructed. Pittsburg, Ft. W. & C. R. Co. v. Gilleland, 56 Pa. 445, 94 Am. Dec. 98; Hannaher v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co. 5 Dak. 24, 37 N.W. 717; Carroll v. Rye Twp. 13 N.D. 458, 101 N.W. 894.

Especially is this true where the flood is caused by an...