The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

A water main pipe with an estimated life of 100 years had been in the ground for 80 years. There was no evidence of a previous break in this particular part of D. There was no possibility of inspection except when the pipe was exposed for other purposes. P had made a service connection on one side of the break, and a third party had made a service connection on the other side. There was evidence that the ground under these connections was soft and that the break could have been caused by the resulting 'beaming action'. There was evidence that breaks could be caused by the shifting of the earth, electrolytic action, and overhead traffic. The water main pipe broke. P brought this action against D seeking damages for injuries sustained when the basement of P's was flooded, and merchandise was damaged. The issue of strict liability was not presented to the jury. The jury returned a verdict on both counts for D. The trial court granted a new trial to P on the ground that the verdict failed to do substantial justice. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.