State v. Guibert

Illinois Court of Claims · 1879 · Evidence

Evidencecausationdamagesbackwaterstatute of limitationsproof of injuryland damagestate-authorized dam

Facts

The claimant alleged that he owned land, 180 to 190 acres of which had been damaged because a dam built across the Illinois River near Copperas Creek in October 1877 raised the water level and backed water over his land. He claimed that summer freshets that had previously been harmless became significantly higher because of the dam, leaving the land water-soaked, soft, unable to bear animals, and nearly worthless, for which he sought $1,700 in damages. The dam was closed on October 22, 1877, and the petition was filed on October 20, 1879. The evidence showed that the lands were one and one-half miles from the river and that their wet and boggy condition was caused by springs near hills located eighteen to twenty-four feet above low water mark.

Issue

Whether the claimant proved that his land was damaged by backwater caused by the state-authorized Copperas Creek dam, and whether his claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

Rule

A claim for land damage allegedly caused by a dam is not barred when filed within two years after the dam's completion. To recover, however, the claimant must show from the evidence that the complained-of damage was caused by backwater from the dam rather than by other natural conditions affecting the land.

🔒

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Peoria, Illinois, Nora Benton filed a claim against the state 21 months after a state-authorized river dam was completed. She showed that 90 acres of her farm had become soggy, but the only persuasive testimony established that underground springs from a nearby hillside had long saturated the tract and that the land sat well away from the river.

What is the best result?

Explanation. The controlling rule has two parts: a claim filed within two years after the dam’s completion is not barred, but recovery still requires proof that the complained-of injury was caused by backwater from the dam rather than by independent natural conditions. Here, the filing is timely at 21 months, yet the evidence attributes the soggy condition to hillside springs, so causation is not shown. (Derived from State v. Guibert (n.d.).)