## Facts

- A homeowner’s cellar flooded to about eighteen inches after a drainpipe running from his foundation to the street broke.
- Before the break, the drainpipe carried away accumulated ground or surface water from the surrounding area.
- After the break, and until the pipe was repaired about ten days later, ground water saturated the area around the house and seeped into the cellar, damaging the residence and personal property.
- The break occurred while the water company’s employees were excavating near the pipe; the homeowner warned them about the pipe’s location.
- The trial justice found the water company’s employees failed to use due care during excavation and caused the pipe to break.
- In stating liability, the trial justice also described the seepage as coming from pipes under the defendant’s control, though the record did not support that specific source characterization.

## Issues

1. Whether the judgment for the homeowner could stand where the trial justice misstated the source of the flooding water but found negligent excavation that broke the drainpipe.
2. Whether the trial justice erred in admitting and relying on evidence supporting the amount of damages awarded.

## Decision

- The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of \$576.50 plus costs.
- The Court held that, although the trial justice misconceived the evidence about the immediate water source, the record supported the conclusion that defendant’s negligent excavation caused the break and resulting damage.
- The Court upheld the trial justice’s evidentiary rulings and assessment of damages.

## Legal Principles

- A party performing excavation may be liable for resulting property damage when its lack of due care breaks an adjacent owner’s drainage structure and leads to flooding, including where the flooding results from ground water that would have been drained absent the break.
- On appeal from a bench trial, findings and conclusions will not be disturbed unless they are clearly wrong or fail to do substantial justice between the parties.
- A trial justice’s mistaken description of a specific evidentiary detail does not require reversal where uncontradicted evidence and reasonable inferences support the ultimate finding of negligence and causation.
- Trial-level rulings admitting and weighing damages evidence will be upheld where the record supports the award and no reversible error is shown.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a bench judgment holding a water company liable for negligently breaking a homeowner’s drainpipe during excavation, concluding that the trial justice’s misstatement about the water’s source did not undermine the supported finding that defendant’s negligence caused the flooding and proved damages.


DeSpirito v. Bristol Cnty. Water Co., 102 R.I. 50, 227 A.2d 782 (1967)