Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Rounds v. Hoelscher

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided December 10, 1981No. 3-580A138Published

1ConcurrenceHoffman, Presiding Judge

I concur in the result reached by the majority. I cannot agree however with the abandonment of the common enemy rule in favor of the reasonable use rule.

The Indiana version of the common enemy rule is summarized in the recent case of Argyelan v. Haviland (1981), Ind.App., 418 N.E.2d 569, at 571 (transfer pending) as follows:

“ ‘[A] lower property owner may dam against such water to prevent it from entering onto his land and . . . cannot be held liable for damages resulting from the accumulation of water above the obstruction or because such obstruction causes the water to flow onto the land of…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Taylor v. FickasIndiana Supreme Court · 1878
  2. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. SmithIndiana Supreme Court · 1912
  3. New Jersey, Indiana & Illinois Railroad v. TuttIndiana Supreme Court · 1907
  4. Gene B. Glick Co., Inc. v. Marion Construction Corp.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1975
  5. Templeton v. VoshloeIndiana Supreme Court · 1880

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API