OCR Text |
Show 382 MARYLAND not being sold, there was no evidence of waste or malice, and the parties had stipulated that there was no negligence in defendant's operations. Perhaps the most interesting point in the case was the plaintiff's suggestion that he had been deprived of either lateral or subjacent support. The court disposed of the subjacent support theory on the ground that it is applicable only where the supported land is above and the supporting land is below the surface, that is, where there are two or more horizontal strata of ownership. Nor could the plain- tiff's contention be sustained on the ground that defendant was sub- ject to absolute liability for the removal of the lateral support neces- sary for plaintiff's land in its natural condition. It was held that the lateral support cases do not extend to the removal of water from beneath plaintiff's land. Liability can be predicated only on the removal of "fluids of which the constituents are preponderantly solid matter."5S It was stipulated that only water seeped into the quarry. There is some disagreement in other jurisdictions as to whether liability should depend entirely upon the distinction between a "water rights" contest and a case of withdrawal of lateral support.59 Publications Available Institution for Water Resource Research : Water Resources Research Center, Shriver Laboratory, University of Maryland, College Park Md. 20742 301-454-2224 or 3901 Publications Plager, Maloney, Emergency Patterns for Regulations of Consumptive Use of Water in the Eastern United States, 43 Ind. L.J. 383 (1968). Note, Drainage of Surface Waters Under Civil Law Rule as Applied in Maryland, 11 Md. L. Rev. 58-70 (1950). 68 The court adopted restatement, torts sec. 818, comment 6 (1939). B» The cases in other states are collected In C. Meyers and A. D. Tarlock, Water Resource Management: A Coursebooh in Law and PuWio Policy, 577-81 (1971). |