Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ill. LIABILITY <br /> <br />3.1 DISCUSSION <br /> <br />English common law, still the basis for <br />nonstatutory law in the United States, traditionally ha, <br />held that the capture or collection of large amounts of <br />water on one's land constitutes a hazardous activity anl <br />that the collector operates at the risk of all <br />subsequent occurrences related to that capture. Thus, <br />to this day, most states hold dam owners liable for <br />damages that result from the failures of their dams. <br /> <br />This is not always the case, however, since <br />statutory law and judicial decisions have somewhat <br />confused the certainty of liability. For example; the <br />results of some cases* have suggested that da~ owners <br />must be negligent before they can be held liable for <br />damages resulting from the dam's failure. In at least <br />one case (Gibson at a1. VB Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: <br />De artment of Environmental Resources, and Goddard and <br />Ellam, 19 8 the court held that a state official <br />responsible for inspecting a dam was not immune from <br />liability. Following a dam failure during the 1977 <br />Johnstown flood, downstream residents filed suit agains! <br />the State of Pennsylvania and individual employees <br />responsible for the state's dam safety program. The <br />State Supreme Court ruled that the state employees were <br />not immune. <br /> <br />*Turner vs Big Lake Oil Co. 96 S.W. 2D 221 (1936) <br />(Texas); Walsh vs East Butte Copper Mining Co. !!. a1. <br />214 P. 641 (1923) (Montana); and Van Alstyne vs City of <br />Amsterdam 197 N.Y.S. 570 (1922) (New York). <br /> <br />-16- <br />