Waters and Watercourses — Diversion of natural flow of surface waters — Discharge upon land of another — Liability of township — Scope of release of liability — Amount of damages — Evidence.
In this case, in which plaintiffs alleged a continuing trespass and that their property had been depreciated in value as a result of the wrongful discharge of surface waters upon their property, in which it appeared that the court below concluded that (1) the evidence established that after the defendant township closed the drain on land of another more water was drained onto plaintiffs' land than would naturally have flowed onto it and that this imposed liability on defendant, (2) a release executed by plaintiffs' predecessor in title which discharged the township from any claims which might arise from the widening of the highway upon which the property abutted did not contemplate damage to the land by the flow of surface waters diverted by the township from their natural course and did not operate to release defendant from a claim for damages relating to the subsequent construction of a drain at plaintiffs' property, (3) the evidence established that the additional draining was sufficient to cause the damage complained of by plaintiffs, and that (4) the evidence provided a standard for determination of the amount of the damages and was sufficient to support the verdict for plaintiffs, it was Held that the order of the court below refusing defendant's motions for Judgment n.o.v. and for a new trial should be affirmed.
Argued November 11, 1959.
OPINION PER CURIAM, December 17, 1959:
The order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County is affirmed on the opinion of Judge SOFFEL for the court below reported at 19 Pa. D. C. 2d 169.