West Kentucky Coal Co. v. Dilback
| Decision Date | 10 May 1927 |
| Parties | West Kentucky Coal Company v. Dilback, et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
1. Waters and Water Courses. — Ordinarily, those engaged in mining operations are not responsible for damages caused by diverting or destroying the flow of water.
2. Mines and Minerals. — Surface owners' right to have the surface maintained in its natural state free from subsidence or parting of the soil from mining directly thereunder is absolute, to which the right to mine is subservient.
3. Waters and Water Courses. — Coal mine operator is not liable to the adjacent land owner for damages to a well resulting from the subsidence of lateral support, in absence of proof of negligence.
Appeal from Webster Circuit Court.
RAYBURN & WITHERS and VERT C. FRASER for appellant.
T.W. JOHNSON and BLACKWELL & LISMAN for appellees.
Reversing.
The appellees are the owners of a certain house and lot in Webster county, Ky., near Wheatcroft. It is a three-room house, with a porch, and at the time of the injuries complained of it was occupied by appellees as a dwelling. On the lot was a good well which furnished water for appellees. The appellant is engaged in operating a coal mine for the production of coal and the operation was not far distant from the house of appellees, although the proof does not show that the operation extended under the premises of appellees, and the nearest point to which the operation extended was about 200 feet from their property. The basis of the action is that appellant negligently and improperly mined and removed coal in such a way as to not leave sufficient support for the overlying surface, and that by reason thereof there was a break or cave-in, as alleged in the petition, and that said cave-in caused large cracks to open through the surface of appellees' property, thereby destroying their well and otherwise damaging the property.
A trial resulted in a verdict for $600 in favor of appellees. The proof shows little or no damage other than the destruction of the well. It does not show that the operation was under the property of appellees. The proof is largely directed towards showing the difference in the value of the house and lot with the well and without the well. It is true, there is some proof showing there were cracks in the surface of appellees' land, but this proof is rather meager, and, assuming it to be true, it does not show that the property was damaged in any material way except the destruction of the well. It is admitted by the witnesses for appellant that there was a subsidence or cave-in about 700 feet from the home of appellees, and that the subsidence extended from east to west. The property of appellees was north of the subsidence and not within the area. This subsidence was about 1,000 feet in length, and 200 to 300 feet in width. There is proof introduced by civil engineers showing that cracks do not extend laterally from a subsidence, but the proof that there were cracks in the surface of appellees' property is persuasive that these cracks were caused by the subsidence. We find no proof in the record that the taking of the coal from adjacent property was negligently done. If the coal had been taken from under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
North East Coal Co. v. Pickelsimer
... ... The sister, who joined her in her action, ... lived in California, and had only been in Kentucky twice in ... 23 years; the last visit being 7 years ago when she visited ... her mother's grave ... or from under the lateral support of the surface of the ... graveyard. In West Ky. Coal Co. v. Dilback, 219 Ky ... 783, 294 S.W. 478, 479, it was written: "The right to ... ...
-
North-East Coal Co. v. Hayes
... ... The defendant appeals ... 1. As ... to the breaks in the surface: In West Kentucky Coal Co ... v. Dilback, 219 Ky. 783, 294 S.W. 478, 479, the court ... thus stated the ... ...