[DOWNLOAD] "J.J. Ferderer v. Northern Pacific Railway" by Supreme Court of North Dakota ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: J.J. Ferderer v. Northern Pacific Railway
- Author : Supreme Court of North Dakota
- Release Date : January 18, 1947
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 73 KB
Description
The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages alleged to have been sustained in March, 1943 as a result of the flooding
of premises then occupied by him in Morton County in this state; and which flood it is alleged was caused by the negligence
of the defendant in the construction of certain works made for the purpose of changing the course of the Cannonball river.
The plaintiff alleges that he sustained damages in the sum of $2900.82. The defendant interposed an answer denying generally
the allegations of the complaint, except as admitted, qualified or explained. The defendant denies any negligence and alleges
that the dykes and embankments were designed and constructed pursuant to proper engineering standards and were adequate to
take care of all normal waters and flood waters reasonably foreseeable; also, that at the time of the flood the waters did
not reach a greater height than they would have reached if the river had remained in its natural course. It is further alleged
that the flood was entirely unprecedented and unforeseeable; that the premises in question were occupied by plaintiff as a
tenant for hire and that his landlord held title thereto under covenants which released the defendant from any liability such
as that claimed in this action, and that the plaintiff had constructive notice and knowledge of such covenants. The action was tried to the jury upon the issues formed by the pleadings. The court submitted the case to the jury for a
general verdict and also submitted the following special interrogatory, "Was the flood that occurred on or about March 25,
1943 in the valley of the Cannonball River in the vicinity of and on the land occupied by the plaintiff an extraordinary and
unprecedented flood?" In its instructions the court gave directions to the jury for the return of a sealed verdict in the
event they were unable to agree upon and return a verdict during the open session of the court. The jury returned a verdict
in favor of the defendant. Judgment was entered pursuant to the judgment. Thereafter the plaintiff moved for a new trial
upon several grounds, among others, (1) irregularities in the proceedings of the court by which the plaintiff was prevented
from having a fair trial; and (2) errors in law occurring at the trial and excepted to by the plaintiff. The motion for a
new trial was denied and plaintiff has appealed from the judgment and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.