City Bowling Alleys v. Berlin
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Case, for negligence. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiffs. A view was taken by the jury. The original declaration alleged in substance, that the plaintiffs were the owners of certain bowling alleys in a basement in Berlin, in the rear of which was a stream of water known as Dead river, which had long flowed past the premises without causing injury, that the defendants negligently increased the volume of water by constructing and maintaining a large number of drains…
Read the full summary
Case, for negligence. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiffs. A view was taken by the jury. The original declaration alleged in substance, that the plaintiffs were the owners of certain bowling alleys in a basement in Berlin, in the rear of which was a stream of water known as Dead river, which had long flowed past the premises without causing injury, that the defendants negligently increased the volume of water by constructing and maintaining a large number of drains and sewers by which large quantities of water have been turned into the stream so as to cause its overflow, whereby on…
1Opinion of the CourtPlummer, J.
To maintain an action upon this declaration, the plaintiffs were required to prove that the volume of water in Dead river was materially increased by the water flowing into it from drains and sewers. There is no claim that the plaintiffs were damaged by sewage flowing onto their premises. Their action upon this allegation rests solely upon the increase in the amount of water flowing in Dead river, occasioned by the discharge from drains and sewers. The defendants contend that there was no evidence in the case that would warrant the jury in finding that the volume of water in Dead river had…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Deschenes v. Concord & Montreal RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1897
- Reynolds v. Burgess Sulphite Fibre Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1904
- Dame v. Laconia Car Co. WorksSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1902
3Cited by1 opinion
- Watkins v. HustisSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1919