## Facts

- William Cahill held a leasehold interest and operated a mill on Hennepin Island in the Mississippi River at Minneapolis.
- William Eastman constructed a tunnel under or through Hennepin Island to divert or conduct river water for water-power or related purposes.
- After construction, river water infiltrated the tunnel and reached Cahill’s mill foundations or structure.
- The water intrusion caused substantial physical damage to the mill and interfered with its use.
- Cahill sued Eastman for the resulting property damage.
- The trial court entered judgment for Cahill and denied Eastman’s motion for a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether a person who constructs and maintains an artificial subterranean waterwork that allows water to escape and damage another’s property is liable without proof of negligence.
2. Whether liability for damage from such an artificial accumulation or channeling of water is subject to recognized exceptions (e.g., act of God, plaintiff’s fault, unforeseeable third-party acts).

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the order denying a new trial and left standing the judgment for Cahill.
- The court held Eastman liable for the natural consequences of water escaping from his artificial tunnel without requiring proof of negligent construction or maintenance.
- The court treated the activity as an artificial, potentially dangerous use of land for the actor’s benefit, placing the risk of escape on the actor absent an applicable defense.

## Legal Principles

- A person who, for personal purposes, artificially collects, channels, or confines a force likely to cause harm if it escapes (including water) must keep it contained at the person’s peril.
- When that force escapes and causes damage to another’s property, the actor is prima facie liable for the natural consequences of the escape, irrespective of negligence.
- Strict liability of this type is not absolute; recognized defenses may include act of God, the plaintiff’s own fault, or unforeseeable acts of third parties beyond the actor’s reasonable anticipation.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a strict-liability rule for harm caused by the escape of water from an artificial tunnel, holding that the creator and controller of the artificial waterwork bears responsibility for resulting damage without requiring the injured party to prove negligence, subject to limited defenses.


Cahill v. Eastman, 18 Minn. 324 (1872)