## Facts

- John H. Hughes and Anna Ruth Hughes owned rural property with two water wells that provided a continuous potable supply for decades.
- Their title derived from a 1953 deed subject to a prior reservation of mining rights originating in a 1921 deed.
- Emerald Mines Corporation held coal and mining rights beneath the larger tract that included and adjoined the Hugheses’ land and conducted deep mining operations.
- Emerald dug an airshaft near the Hugheses’ wells and injected grout into the airshaft.
- Shortly thereafter (late May or early June 1978), one well went dry and the other became polluted, leaving the property without potable water.
- At trial, valuation testimony indicated the property was worth $42,500 with potable well water and $10,000 without it; the jury awarded $32,500 based on this difference.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that Emerald’s mining activities caused the well failure and pollution.
2. Whether the interference with the Hugheses’ water supply constituted an actionable private nuisance or merely *damnum absque injuria*.
3. Whether the mining-rights clause in the deed barred recovery or required a different liability instruction.
4. Whether the $32,500 verdict based on diminution in value was excessive where evidence showed the wells could be repaired or replaced for substantially less.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the liability verdict, holding the evidence supported causation and the elements of private nuisance.
- The court rejected the argument that the harm was *damnum absque injuria* merely because Emerald acted under mining rights.
- The mining-rights clause did not immunize Emerald from liability for an unreasonable, non-trespassory invasion; the challenged instruction did not warrant reversal on liability.
- The court reversed the damages award as excessive and remanded for a new damages determination focusing on actual and consequential damages in light of testimony that repairs were feasible at lower cost.

## Legal Principles

- Private nuisance may be established by an intentional and unreasonable interference with another’s use and enjoyment of land, including non-trespassory interference from subsurface industrial activity affecting groundwater and wells.
- “Intentional” interference in nuisance includes conduct undertaken with knowledge, or substantial certainty, that it will cause the interference.
- A reservation or grant of mining rights does not authorize conduct that unreasonably interferes with surface owners’ use and enjoyment, and does not bar nuisance liability for such interference.
- When property damage is reasonably remediable, damages generally should reflect reasonable restoration or replacement costs plus consequential losses, rather than full diminution in market value premised on permanent loss.

## Conclusion

The court sustained the jury’s finding that Emerald’s grouting and related mining activity caused an intentional and unreasonable interference with the Hugheses’ water supply, constituting a private nuisance, but required a new damages assessment because the diminution-in-value verdict was excessive in light of evidence that the wells could be repaired or replaced.


Hughes v. Emerald Mines Corp., 450 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1982)