Woodstock Iron Works v. Stockdale

• Decision Date: 30 May 1905
• Citation: 142 Ala. 550,39 So. 335
• Parties: WOODSTOCK IRON WORKS v. STOCKDALE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

39 So. 335

142 Ala. 550

WOODSTOCK IRON WORKS v. STOCKDALE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 30, 1905

Appeal from City Court of Talladega; G. K. Miller, Judge.

Action by J. L. Stockdale against the Woodstock Iron Works to recover damages for the diversion of water from a stream running through plaintiff's premises. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The complaint contained several counts, averring in substance the ownership of certain lands by plaintiff, through which Dry creek ran for a long distance, and the damming up and diversion of the stream by defendant, causing it to flow out of its natural channel at a point above the land thereby injuring plaintiff's land and affecting the healthfulness of plaintiff's premises. Count 1 contained the following averment: "Plaintiff suffered great inconvenience annoyance, and damage in a large sum, to wit, $1,000, by said diversion by the defendant of the said waters of said stream in this: that plaintiff's only source of water supply other than Dry creek, was a well, which only afforded sufficient water for drinking purposes for plaintiff's own family, and by being forced to use said well for all purposes the same became and was rendered muddy, impure, and disagreeable to drink, causing sickness of plaintiff's wife and mental suffering to plaintiff, all to plaintiff's injury and damage." The defendant moved to strike this portion of the count on the ground that the damages sought to be recovered are too remote and speculative and are not the proximate result of the wrongs complained of as done by defendant. The court overruled the motion and defendant excepted. Two witnesses were examined in behalf of the plaintiff, and their testimony tended to prove the averments of the complaint. On the examination of the plaintiff as a witness in his own behalf, his counsel asked him the following question: "Was your wife sick during this summer or fall; and, if so, what, in your opinion as a physician, caused this sickness; and did you suffer any mental anxiety on this account?" To this question the defendant objected on the following grounds: "(1) Irrelevant, illegal, and immaterial. (2) Plaintiff cannot recover damages in this action for mental sufferings or for his wife's sickness. (3) The fact that his wife drank muddy water and became sick, and he suffered mental anguish in the manner testified to, does not show any liability for such sickness on the part of the defendant." The court overruled the objection, and the defendant excepted. The defendant introduced eight witnesses, whose testimony tended to show that the defendant dammed up two of nine prongs of Dry creek; that the effect of the dam was not appreciable and did not cause the water to flow less freely through plaintiff's premises, and did not injure him. The court, sitting as a jury, rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $50, to which judgment the defendant excepted.

Knox, Dixon, & Burr, for appellant.

H. L. McElderry, for appellee.

ANDERSON J.

"The rule is general that a person is not to be held responsible in damages for the remote consequences of his act, or, indeed, for any but those which are proximate and natural." 8 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, 561. We think that so much of the complaint as claims damages for the reduction of the supply of well water, and the results therefrom, including his wife's sickness, was due to the plaintiff's act in using the well, and not the proximate result of any wrong of the defendant, and the motion to strike this claim from the complaint might well have been sustained.

Under no theory could the plaintiff recover for the mental suffering of himself caused by the sickness and...