[DOWNLOAD] "Carl R. Dockery v. State Indiana" by Supreme Court Of Indiana " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Carl R. Dockery v. State Indiana
- Author : Supreme Court Of Indiana
- Release Date : January 19, 1994
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 65 KB
Description
VAN SANT, Commissioner. In the year 1936 appellant, Consolidation Coal Company, commenced dumping refuse, coal, slate, debris, and track cleanings, at the entrance of one of its mines at the mouth of the W. E. Porter Hollow in Johnson County. In March of 1941 the materials in the heart of the dump were ignited by spontaneous combustion, and smoke began to percolate through the surface of the dump. In May of that year the fumes were escaping in such quantities as to travel a distance of 2,770 feet as the crow flies, and pollute the air in and around the dwelling house of appellee, Lon Mann. Such pollution was not constant, but occurred only when the atmosphere was so heavy and the wind so unfavorable as to prevent the smoke and fumes from being dissipated and diluted at or near the dump, as they were on clearer days. The condition has existed without abatement since May, 1941, and it was proved beyond doubt that the fire now cannot be extinguished. As a result of the pollution of the air at frequent intervals, appellees residence was rendered uninhabitable, and the rental value of a tenant building on his property was reduced. This action was filed for damages resulting from the alleged negligent act of the defendant, in maintaining the dump. Judgment was entered on a verdict in favor of appellee in the sum of $900. As grounds for reversal, appellant contends (1) that it was entitled to a peremptory instruction at the close of all the evidence; (2) that the court erred in admitting incompetent evidence and rejecting competent evidence; (3) that the court erred in his instructions to the jury; and (4) that the damages were excessive. In view of the conclusion hereinafter expressed, we deem it unnecessary to discuss the soundness of the abstract theory contended for by appellee, viz., that the operator of a lawful business may be held liable in damages for injury to adjacent property necessarily resulting from careful and prudent operation of the business.