Re: water problems - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. 1 " Ms. Nina Wildman June 25, 1991 Page 2 to deal with the problems caused by your water reservoir is in the range from $12, 000 -$20, 000. It is also anticipated that the cost of the hydrological expert will run into several thousand dollars. With respect to the issue of legal liability, Minnesota law is clear and long-standing following a landmark English case. There is strict liability for defendant where he damages another by a thing or activity inappropriate to the place where it is maintained, in light of the character of that place and its surroundings. See, Fletcher v. Rylands, L.R. 1 Ex. 265, 279-80 (1866) ("We think that the rule of law is that the person who for his own purposes brings on his land and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and if he does not do so is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence if it escapes") ; Cahill v. Eastman, 18 Minn. 324 (1871) (English precedent was quickly adopted by Minnesota Supreme Court in this case where an underground water tunnel broke through into plaintiff 's property) ; Bridaeman - Russell Co. v. City of Duluth, 158 Minn. 509, 197 N.W. 971 (1924) (liability for defendant where water was collected in quantity. in an inappropriate place) . This type of injury to plaintiff is sometimes referred to as "absolute nuisance" for which strict liability is found without intent to do harm and without proof of negligence. See, Filtrol Corp. v. Huahes, 199 Miss. 10, 23 So. 2d 891 (1945) ; Pruitt v. Bethell, 174 N.C. 454, 93 S.E. 945 (1917) ; De Vaughn v. Minor, 77 Ga. 809, 1 S.E. 433 (1887) ; Alabama Western R. Co. v. Wilson, 1 Ala.App. 306, 55 So. 932 (1911) ; Smith v. Board of County Road Comm'rs, 5 Mich.App. 370, 146 N.W.2d 702 (1966) . Cases also include those where water is allowed to percolate from an inappropriate place. See, Pixley v. Clark, 35 N.Y. 520 (1866) ; Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Gadsden Sand & Gravel Co. , 248 Ala. 273, 27 So. 2d 578 (1946) ; International & G. N.R. Co. v. Slusher, 42 Tex.Civ.App. 631, 95 S.W. 717 (1906) ; City of Barberton v. Miksch, 128 Ohio St. 169, 190 N.E. 387 (1934) . - Preli�inary research �hrough the offire of the Zoning Administrator, City of Orono, strongly suggests that the reservoir is not in - compliance with City regulations and the terms and conditions of the grant of the subdivision plat. I sincerely request you promptly respond to this letter indicating your responsibility and commitment to a fair and practical solution to the water problems. Very truly yours, LANGE � ANDERSON, P.A. �� v 'Duerr �-- Attorne Law cc: Mr. and Mrs. Tim Hillman Jeanne Mabusth, City of Orono Jim DeLambert, B.A. Liesch Associates, Inc.