Potter v. Froment
California Supreme Court
Potter v. Froment, 47 Cal. 165 (Cal. 1873)
Potter v. Froment
Opinion of the Court
The complaint does not allege any special damage sustained by the plaintiff, and it was, therefore, error to admit evidence of the cost of boiling and skimming water for household purposes. So, the complaint failing to allege that the- plaintiff rented the farm, or was prevented from renting it by reason of the discoloration of the water in the stream, proof of diminution of rental value was inadmissible.
The cause is remanded with directions to strike out so much of the judgment as awards damages, appellant to recover costs of appeal.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- THOMAS F. POTTER v. EUGENE FROMENT, EUGENE VEUVE and RICHARD S. SWAIN
- Cited By
- 5 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Pboop of Special Damages.—In an action for damages, caused by the pollution of the water of a stream which runs over the plaintiff’s land, special damages cannot be proved unless they are alleged in the complaint. Idem.—In such case, proof of the diminution of the rental value of the farm caused by the pollution of the water, is inadmissible, if the complaint fails to allege that the plaintiff rented the farm, or was prevented from renting it, by reason of the injury to the water.