| OCR Text |
Show 254 PROTECTION OF WATER RIGHTS IN WATERCOURSES the burden was on appellant to prove the existence of a surplus, that burden did not come into existence until after the respondent riparians first proved the amount required by them for reasonable beneficial purposes. This primary burden the riparians did not sustain. (2) A riparian owner who claims that he has been damaged by the diversion of water by an appropriator has the burden of sustaining his allegation of damages by competent proof thereof. It becomes necessary for him to show that his property was actually damaged by the diversion complained of.291 (3) The riparian owner who is injured by stream pollution has the burden of proving the extent of the damage.292 In an Oklahoma action for damages arising from the pollution of a stream flowing through plaintiffs premises, failure to prove that there were poisonous or deleterious substances in the water harmful to animal life, or that the plaintiffs animals and fowls died as the result of drinking the water, was held fatal to his right of recovery. The syllabus by the Oklahoma Supreme Court contains the following paragraph:293 In order to sustain a recovery in an action based on negligence there must be a causal connection between the negligence averred and the injury received, and such causal connection cannot be established by basing inference upon inference, or presumption upon presumption. i9iCrum v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp., 117 Cal. App. 586, 602, 4 Pac. (2d) 564 (1931), hearing denied by supreme court (1931). ^Oklahoma City v. Tytenicz, 171 Okla. 519, 521,43 Pac. (2d) 747 (1935). SeeMartin v. British Am. Oil Producing Co., 187 Okla. 193,194-195,102 Pac. (2d) 124 (1940). ™Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Howery, 169 Okla. 408, 37 Pac. (2d) 303 (1934). See Gulf Oil Corp. v. Miller, 198 Okla. 54, 55-56, 175 Pac. (2d) 335 (1946); Ogden v. Baker, 205 Okla. 506, 508, 239 Pac. (2d) 393 (1951); Sum-ay Oil Corp. v.Burge, 269 Pac. (2d) 782, 786 (Okla. 1954). |
