Larkins-Warr Trust v. Watchorn Petroleum Co.

I agree with the law stated in paragraph 1 of the syllabus of the majority opinion if nonnegligehce of the operating defendant, as a fact, could be accepted for the rule of law.

In the Hoke Case (Oklahoma City v. Hoke, 75 Okla. 211, 182 P. 692), relied upon, it was ruled:

“The defendant cannot certainly escape liability for its acts, when in the abatement of a nuisance it creates . a condition which in effect is a nuisance as to the plaintiff,” but for its “act which results in damages to third persons ... it will be liable”.

The majority say: “Defendants do not deny that this water did this…