Golden v. Amory case brief

Golden v. Amory case brief
1952

Facts: Defendant owned a hydroelectric plant, which overflowed after a hurricane and damaged real estate of plaintiffs. The first count is that defendant built the plant without a permit while second was negligence. Defendant won both cases in trial, the 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 the 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. 

Check out our eBook: How to Win at Law School to see how to transfer to a top school, get the top grades in your class, and get a head start on the legal profession!