Golden v. Amory case brief
Facts: Defendant owned a hydroelectric plant, which overflowed after a hurricane and damaged real estate of plaintiffs. First count is that defendant built the plant without a permit while second was negligence. Defendant won both cases in trial, judge directed verdicts for defendants on both counts. Appeal for the action and for having certain evidence excluded at trial
Decision: Affirmed, defendant wins
Reasoning: The rule of Rylands does not apply in cases that are a result of the act of god. They thought that the flood resulting from hurricane was beyond any way to anticipate and should not apply in this case, defendants cannot be liable.
Holding: A defendant is not responsible for the harm that results as an act of god under the doctrine of strict liability.