Maddocks v. Giles
1999 Me. LEXIS 71, 1999 ME 63, 728 A.2d 150 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Maine's absolute dominion rule, a landowner may use or divert percolating groundwater on their property for any lawful purpose without liability to a neighboring landowner, even if it drains the neighbor's spring or well, unless the water flows in a defined underground watercourse.
Facts:
- Sewall and Janice Maddocks own property containing a large underground spring.
- Elbridge Giles owns an adjacent property where he operates a gravel pit.
- Giles began excavation activities at his gravel pit, which included dewatering the pit to enable deeper digging.
- Following Giles's excavation and dewatering activities, the Maddockses' spring ran dry.
- Hydrogeologists for both parties agreed the water feeding the spring was percolating groundwater, not a defined underground watercourse with a bed, banks, and sides.
Procedural Posture:
- The Maddockses filed a complaint against Giles in the Superior Court (Lincoln County).
- The trial court granted Giles's motion to dismiss the complaint.
- The Maddockses appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, which vacated the dismissal and remanded the case for trial, holding the complaint sufficiently alleged the disruption of a watercourse.
- The case was tried before a jury in the Superior Court.
- The jury returned a unanimous verdict for Giles, specifically finding that the water source was not a watercourse.
- The Maddockses (appellants) appealed the resulting judgment to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Should the court abandon Maine's common law absolute dominion rule for groundwater rights in favor of the reasonable use standard articulated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 858?
Opinions:
Majority - Calkins, J.
No. The court will not abandon the absolute dominion rule because it is a long-standing precedent that landowners have relied upon, and any change to such a significant property rights doctrine should be made by the Legislature, not the judiciary. The court reasoned that stare decisis holds sway, especially given that the appellants failed to provide evidence that the current rule has functioned poorly in Maine. Furthermore, the court emphasized judicial restraint, stating that the Legislature is better equipped to study the complex policy ramifications of changing water law. The court also noted that the Legislature had previously received a report recommending a change to the reasonable use standard but chose not to act, which the court interpreted as a decision to maintain the existing common law.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms Maine's adherence to the minority 'absolute dominion' rule for percolating groundwater, solidifying its position as an outlier among states that have largely moved to a 'reasonable use' or Restatement standard. The case is a significant example of judicial deference to the legislature on matters of complex public policy and established property rights. By declining to overturn a century-old precedent, the court signals that substantial changes to foundational common law property rules in Maine must come from legislative action, not judicial reinterpretation, even when the old rule is based on outdated scientific assumptions.
Unlock the full brief for Maddocks v. Giles