Harbison-Walker Refractories Co. v. Smith

Sixth Circuit

Harbison-Walker Refractories Co. v. Smith

194 F.2d 530, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2795

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 28, 1952

Docket11428_1

StatusPublished

This text of 194 F.2d 530 (Harbison-Walker Refractories Co. v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harbison-Walker Refractories Co. v. Smith, 194 F.2d 530, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2795 (6th Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In a challenge to a judgment for damages suffered through the negligent maintenance of a culvert on the property of appellant, there was substantial evidence of floatable debris upon the appellants’ property and in the vicinity; that during heavy rainfalls such debris clogged the culvert, caused the flooding of and injury to the appellees’ property and evidence that the topographical situation made the circumstances dangerous. It is our view that the evidence sustained the judgment upon the application of the following principles.

Where injury could reasonably have been -foreseen in the light of attending circumstances, and where the thing done or omitted to be done, is a substantial factor in bringing it about, it is not necessary that the party charged should have had in mind the particular means by which it is brought about. Johnson v. Kosmos Portland Cement Company, 6 Cir., 64 F.2d 193, Pittsburgh Steamship Company v. Palo, 6 Cir., 64 F.2d 198, and Smith v. Lampe, 6 Cir., 64 F.2d 201, and that heavy rainfall and resulting flood is not so unusual a manifestation of natural phenomena as to break the causal relation between negligence and resulting injury. Johnson v. Portland Cement Company, supra, Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co. v. Kellogg, 94 U.S. 469, 24 L.Ed. 256, Vyse v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Company, 126 Iowa 90, 101 N.W. 736, Bohlen Studies in the Law of Torts 29.

The judgment below is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In a challenge to a judgment for damages suffered through the negligent maintenance of a culvert on the property of appellant, there was substantial evidence of floatable debris upon the appellants’ property and in the vicinity; that during heavy rainfalls such debris clogged the culvert, caused the flooding of and injury to the appellees’ property and evidence that the topographical situation made the circumstances dangerous. It is our view that the evidence sustained the judgment upon the application of the following principles.

Where injury could reasonably have been -foreseen in the light of attending circumstances, and where the thing done or omitted to be done, is a substantial factor in bringing it about, it is not necessary that the party charged should have had in mind the particular means by which it is brought about. Johnson v. Kosmos Portland Cement Company, 6 Cir., 64 F.2d 193, Pittsburgh Steamship Company v. Palo, 6 Cir., 64 F.2d 198, and Smith v. Lampe, 6 Cir., 64 F.2d 201, and that heavy rainfall and resulting flood is not so unusual a manifestation of natural phenomena as to break the causal relation between negligence and resulting injury. Johnson v. Portland Cement Company, supra, Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co. v. Kellogg, 94 U.S. 469, 24 L.Ed. 256, Vyse v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Company, 126 Iowa 90, 101 N.W. 736, Bohlen Studies in the Law of Torts 29.

The judgment below is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 F.2d 530, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harbison-walker-refractories-co-v-smith-ca6-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack