Stratton v. Mount Hermon Boys' School
216 Mass. 83, 103 N.E. 87, 1913 Mass. LEXIS 1356 (1913)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An upper riparian owner is liable to a lower riparian owner for diverting stream water for use on non-riparian land only if the diversion causes actual, perceptible damage to the lower owner's present or future reasonable use of the water. Diversion to a non-riparian parcel, by itself, does not constitute a legal injury without proof of harm.
Facts:
- The Defendant, an upper riparian proprietor, owned a tract of land through which a stream flowed.
- The Defendant established a pumping system and diverted approximately 60,000 gallons of water per day from the stream and an adjoining spring.
- This water was transported about a mile away to a non-contiguous, non-riparian estate in a different watershed.
- The diverted water was used to supply a large boys' school, which included dormitories, a farm with over 200 animals, a swimming pool, a laundry, a canning factory, and a power plant.
- The Plaintiff, a downstream mill owner, presented evidence that this diversion substantially diminished the volume of water flowing to his land and reduced the power available to operate his mill.
Procedural Posture:
- The Plaintiff, a mill owner, sued the Defendant, an upstream school, in a trial court for wrongful diversion of water.
- At trial before Judge Hitchcock, the Defendant requested a jury instruction that the reasonableness of its water use was the key question, not the location of the use.
- The judge denied the Defendant's request and instead instructed the jury that any diversion for use on non-riparian land entitled the Plaintiff to at least nominal damages, regardless of actual harm.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff and awarded substantial damages.
- The Defendant appealed to the state's highest court, alleging error in the trial judge's denial of its requested instruction and the instruction that was ultimately given.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an upper riparian proprietor's diversion of water for use on non-riparian land automatically entitle a lower riparian proprietor to at least nominal damages without a showing of actual injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Rugg, C.J.
No. An upper riparian proprietor's diversion of water for use on non-riparian land does not automatically entitle a lower riparian proprietor to damages without a showing of actual injury. The court distinguishes between two types of water use. For use on the riparian estate itself, the standard is whether the use is reasonable in light of the rights of all other riparian owners. For the diversion of water to a non-riparian estate or outside the watershed, the legal test is not reasonableness, but whether the diversion causes actual, perceptible injury to the lower proprietor's present or future use of the property. Citing Elliot v. Fitchburg Railroad, the court reasoned that allowing recovery for nominal damages without any possibility of actual injury would lead to an absurd result where any trivial diversion could trigger a lawsuit. While the trial court's instruction permitting recovery of nominal damages without injury was erroneous, the error was harmless in this case because the jury found substantial damages, and the evidence supported this finding.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a crucial distinction between the legal standards governing the use of water on riparian versus non-riparian land. By rejecting a rule of per se liability for diversions to non-riparian parcels, the court created a more practical framework that focuses on tangible harm. This approach prevents a flood of litigation over technical, harmless violations of riparian rights while still protecting downstream owners from actual, perceptible injury. The case solidifies the 'actual injury' rule for non-riparian diversions, influencing water law by balancing the interests of landowners and promoting the beneficial use of water resources.
