Golden v. Amory
Facts
The defendants owned a hydroelectric plant in Ludlow in the Red Bridge area, and after the hurricane of September 21, 1938, the Chicopee River overflowed and damaged the plaintiffs' real estate. The plaintiffs alleged first that the Alden Street dike had been constructed without statutory approval required for reservoir dams and therefore was a nuisance, and second that the defendants were negligent in maintaining the dike. The offered proof showed the dike was built in 1901 without filing plans with or obtaining approval from county commissioners, but Alden Street was primarily a highway whose use as a dike was incidental. In September 1938, after prior heavy rains and with floodwaters expected to exceed the unprecedented 1936 flood, the defendants used all available men and sandbags to save their dam, leaving none for the Alden Street dike.
Issue
Whether the defendants could be held liable for the plaintiffs' flood damage on either a nuisance theory based on failure to comply with statutory requirements for reservoir dams or a negligence/strict-liability theory arising from the maintenance of the dike and dam during the 1938 flood. More specifically, the court considered whether the statute applied to the Alden Street dike, whether any statutory violation caused the injury, and whether liability was barred because the flood was an unforeseeable act of God.
Rule
A statute requiring approval and inspection for a reservoir dam does not apply where the structure at issue is primarily a highway and its use as a dike is merely incidental. Even where the Rylands v. Fletcher rule would otherwise impose prima facie liability for escaped water, that rule does not apply when the injury results from vis major or an act of God that the owner had no reason to anticipate. In negligence, a defendant confronted with a sudden emergency requiring immediate action is not negligent merely because some other course might have been better.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
If the farmers sue under a Rylands-type strict-liability theory for escape of water, which is the strongest argument for North Fork Energy under the governing rule?