## Facts

- Defendants owned and operated a hydroelectric facility on the Chicopee River in Ludlow, Massachusetts, and relied in part on the Alden Street dike as protective works.
- Plaintiffs owned riverfront property along the Chicopee River.
- On September 21, 1938, a hurricane brought torrential rains and an exceptional flood that caused the river to overflow and damage plaintiffs’ property.
- Plaintiffs sued in companion tort actions asserting two theories:
  - A statutory/nuisance theory that the Alden Street dike was built in 1901 without required approvals and inspections for a “reservoir dam” under Massachusetts law.
  - A negligence theory that defendants improperly constructed, maintained, or managed the dike and related works, contributing to the damage.
- The flood was treated as unprecedented and not reasonably foreseeable.

## Issues

1. Whether the Massachusetts “reservoir dam” statute applied to the Alden Street dike such that noncompliance could render it a nuisance supporting liability for flood damage.
2. Whether sufficient evidence supported a finding that defendants were negligent in construction, maintenance, or emergency response during the hurricane and flood.
3. Whether strict liability for escape of impounded water applies when damage results from an extraordinary, unanticipated act of God.

## Decision

- The court upheld directed verdicts for defendants on the statutory/nuisance counts.
- The court upheld exclusion of evidence concerning lack of statutory approvals and inspections as irrelevant because the statute did not apply and, in any event, causation was not shown.
- The court affirmed entry of verdicts for defendants (notwithstanding jury verdicts for plaintiffs) on the negligence counts due to insufficient evidence of negligence and causation in light of the extraordinary flood.
- The court recognized that strict liability for escape of water does not extend to harm caused by an unanticipated act of God; the hurricane and resulting flood fell within that limitation.
- Plaintiffs’ exceptions were overruled, leaving judgment for defendants on all counts.

## Legal Principles

- A statutory-violation or statutory-nuisance theory requires that the statute invoked actually governs the structure at issue; a road embankment used incidentally as a dike is not necessarily a “reservoir dam” within such a statute.
- Even where a statute might be relevant, liability requires proof that statutory noncompliance caused or materially contributed to the plaintiff’s injury.
- Negligence liability requires evidence that the defendant failed to act as a reasonably prudent operator would under the circumstances; extraordinary natural events bear on foreseeability, standard of care, and causation.
- Under a Rylands-type strict-liability theory for escape of collected water, an extraordinary, unanticipated act of God is a defense that defeats liability when the natural event, not human fault, produced the damage.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the reservoir-dam statute did not govern the Alden Street dike, that plaintiffs failed to present legally sufficient proof of negligent fault or causation given an unprecedented hurricane-driven flood, and that strict liability for escape of water does not apply where the harm is attributable to an extraordinary act of God.


Golden v. Amory, 329 Mass. 484, 109 N.E.2d 131 (Mass. 1952)