Woodland v. Portneuf Marsh Valley Irr. Co.

• Decision Date: 02 March 1915
• Citation: 26 Idaho 789,146 P. 1106
• Parties: JOHN T. WOODLAND, Respondent, v. PORTNEUF-MARSH VALLEY IRRIGATION COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

146 P. 1106

26 Idaho 789

JOHN T. WOODLAND, Respondent, v. PORTNEUF-MARSH VALLEY IRRIGATION COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant

Supreme Court of Idaho

March 2, 1915

APPEAL from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District for Bannock County. Hon. J. M. Stevens, Presiding Judge.

Action for injury to hay crop by flooding land with waste water. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Judgment of the district court affirmed. Costs awarded to respondent.

Edwin Snow, for Appellant.

In actions at law, as distinguished from equity, independent tort-feasors, the act of each of whom alone would have caused some damage, are not liable jointly, but each is liable severally only for the proportion of the damage caused by him. (Watson v. Colusa etc. Min. Co., 31 Mont. 513 79 P. 14; Equitable Powder Mfg. Co. v. Cleveland etc. R Co., 155 Ill.App. 265, and affirmed in 246 Ill. 582, 92 N.E. 979; 2 Farnham on Waters, p. 1716; Sun Company v Wyatt, 48 Tex. Civ. App. 349, 107 S.W. 934; Willard v. Redbank Oil Co., 151 Ill.App. 433; Pacific Livestock Co. v. Murray, 45 Ore. 103, 76 P. 1079.)

Budge & Barnard, for Respondent.

An irrigation company cannot collect natural drainage waters and pour them in one volume on lands of another so as to increase the damage above that which would have resulted from the usual and ordinary flow of such waters. (Teeter v. Nampa etc. Irr. Dist., 19 Idaho 355, 114 P. 8.)

DAVIS, District Judge. Sullivan, C. J., and Morgan, J., concur.

OPINION

DAVIS, District Judge.

In this action the plaintiff, John T. Woodland, sought to recover damages in the sum of $ 1,500 for loss of his hay crop, alleged to have been caused by the flooding of his land with water from the canal system owned and operated by the Portneuf-Marsh Valley Irrigation Company, a corporation. The jury awarded plaintiff $ 700 damages, and defendant appeals from the judgment of the lower court in plaintiff's favor for this amount and costs.

It is established by the evidence and admitted by the company that some water from its canals contributed toward the flow that overflowed Woodland's land and injured his hay. In defense it is contended by the company that the evidence does not show that the water wrongfully discharged from the canals, or laterals of its irrigation system, was sufficient by itself to overflow the channel of the creek through Woodland's land or cause any of the injury to his crops. But this is not a good defense, even though true because where one contributes as an independent tort-feasor toward causing an injury, he will be liable for the injury done by him, although his acts or negligence alone might not have caused any injury. In this case the evidence tends to prove that there were at least six sources from which the water came that injured Woodland's hay, and it is not contended by him that the company was responsible for more than one. And, while the evidence is very indefinite as to the relative and specific amount of water from each source, it is sufficient to show that considerable water from the company's canals wrongfully ran into the creek that overflowed its banks and flooded Woodland's property. And everyone who permits water to waste on to the land of others without right is liable for his proportionate share of the injury caused or the harm resulting therefrom, even though the water allowed to run down by each would do no harm if not combined with that of others, and the injury is caused by the combined flow wherein the waters of all are mixed and indistinguishable. If the injury follows as the combined result of the wrongful acts of several, acting independently,...