Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

liabilitytrialplealease
tortappealtrialverdictcommon law

Related Cases

Ruple v. Brooks, 352 N.W.2d 652
View Case »
O’Toole v. Carr, 345 N.J.Super. 559, 786 A.2d 121
View Case »
George v. Jefferson Hosp. Ass’n, Inc., 337 Ark. 206, 987 S.W.2d 710
View Case »
Walker v. Rinck, 604 N.E.2d 591
View Case »
Munroe v. Universal Health Services, Inc., 270 Ga.App. 320, 605 S.E.2d 928, 04 FCDR 3628
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Maddocks v. Giles, 728 A.2d 150, 1999 ME 63

Facts

The Maddockses own property adjacent to a gravel pit owned by Giles, where an underground spring historically flowed beneath their land. In 1994, they filed a complaint alleging that Giles' excavation activities caused the spring to run dry. The trial court initially dismissed the case, but the dismissal was vacated, allowing the case to proceed. At trial, the Maddockses claimed that Giles' activities, including dewatering the pit, exhausted the spring, while Giles contended that the water was percolating and did not constitute a watercourse.

The Maddockses own property adjacent to a gravel pit owned by Giles. The Maddockses do not live on this property; in fact, there is no house on the property. An underground spring that produced large quantities of water has historically flowed beneath the Maddockses' property.

Issue

Whether the court should abandon the absolute dominion rule governing groundwater usage in favor of a new rule.

The sole issue presented on appeal is whether we should depart from the common law absolute dominion rule and adopt the groundwater use rules set forth in restatement (Second) of Torts § 858 (1979).

Rule

The absolute dominion rule allows landowners to use their land as they please, including the right to withdraw groundwater, as long as it does not interfere with a defined watercourse benefitting neighboring land.

The absolute dominion rule is based on the premise that groundwater is the absolute property of the owner of the land, just like the rocks and soil that compose it.

Analysis

The court applied the absolute dominion rule, determining that the water feeding the Maddockses' spring was not classified as a watercourse. The jury found unanimously that the source aquifer was not a watercourse, which led to the conclusion that Giles' excavation activities did not constitute an interference with the Maddockses' rights.

The absolute dominion rule is now the minority rule in the United States.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment in favor of Giles, concluding that the absolute dominion rule was correctly applied and that the Maddockses did not provide sufficient evidence to warrant a change in the law.

Because the absolute dominion rule is the law in Maine governing the issue in this case and because the trial court correctly instructed the jury on the absolute dominion rule, we affirm the verdict.

Who won?

Giles prevailed in the case because the court upheld the absolute dominion rule, which allowed him to conduct his excavation activities without liability for the effects on the Maddockses' spring.

Judgment was granted to Giles.

You must be