reasonable use rule in Florida

2026Irrespective of its origin, Florida’s courts have adopted the reasonable-use rule, see, e.g., Vill. of Tequesta v. Jupiter Inlet Corp., 371 So. 2d 663, 666 (Fla. 1979); Cason v. Fla. Power Co., 76 So. 535 , 536 (Fla. 1917), and applied it to a number of contexts, including non-navigable, privately-owned lake bottoms, see, e.g., Duval v. Thomas, 114 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 1959); Taylor v. Tampa Coal Co., 46 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1950); Florio v. State ex rel.

2001See Village of Tequesta v. Jupiter Inlet Corp., 371 So.2d 663 (Fla.1979).

2026Irrespective of its origin, Florida’s courts have adopted the reasonable-use rule, see, e.g., Vill. of Tequesta v. Jupiter Inlet Corp., 371 So. 2d 663, 666 (Fla. 1979); Cason v. Fla. Power Co., 76 So. 535 , 536 (Fla. 1917), and applied it to a number of contexts, including non-navigable, privately-owned lake bottoms, see, e.g., Duval v. Thomas, 114 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 1959); Taylor v. Tampa Coal Co., 46 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1950); Florio v. State ex rel.

1997Duval v. Thomas, 114 So.2d 791, 794 (Fla. 1959).

1989See Pendergrast v. Aiken, 293 N.C. 201 , 236 S.E.2d 787 (1977) (if the interference is intentional, the conduct of the offending party is measured in terms of reasonableness; if unintentional, the test is negligence).

1989See Pendergrast v. Aiken, 293 N.C. 201 , 236 S.E.2d 787 (1977) (if the interference is intentional, the conduct of the offending party is measured in terms of reasonableness; if unintentional, the test is negligence).

1987See, e.g., Kentucky, Dep’t of Highways v. S & M Land Co., 503 S.W.2d 495 (Ky.1972). .

1987“The reasonable-use rule rejects the extreme doctrines of both the civil-law and common-enemy rules, recognizing that the situation of all adjoining owners of land is not the same, and as the circumstances attending the use of the land in view of the flow of surface water are infinitely various, the failure to obtain substantial justice by the enforcement in all cases of a rule of law which does not recognize these important differences is not surprising.” Franklin v. Durgee, 71 N.H. 186, 191 , 51 A. 911, 913 (1901).

1987“The reasonable-use rule rejects the extreme doctrines of both the civil-law and common-enemy rules, recognizing that the situation of all adjoining owners of land is not the same, and as the circumstances attending the use of the land in view of the flow of surface water are infinitely various, the failure to obtain substantial justice by the enforcement in all cases of a rule of law which does not recognize these important differences is not surprising.” Franklin v. Durgee, 71 N.H. 186, 191 , 51 A. 911, 913 (1901).

1979The reasonable use rule adopted by most Eastern states, including Florida, was stated by one court as follows: [A] landowner, who, in the course of using his own land, obstructs, diverts, or removes percolating water to the injury of his neighbor ... must be [making] a reasonable exercise of his proprietary right, i.e., such an exercise as may be reasonably necessary for some useful or beneficial purpose, generally relating to the land in which the waters are found. *667 Finley et ux. v. Teeter Stone, Inc., 251 Md. 428, 435 , 248 A.2d 106, 111-12 (Md.

1979The reasonable use rule adopted by most Eastern states, including Florida, was stated by one court as follows: [A] landowner, who, in the course of using his own land, obstructs, diverts, or removes percolating water to the injury of his neighbor ... must be [making] a reasonable exercise of his proprietary right, i.e., such an exercise as may be reasonably necessary for some useful or beneficial purpose, generally relating to the land in which the waters are found. *667 Finley et ux. v. Teeter Stone, Inc., 251 Md. 428, 435 , 248 A.2d 106, 111-12 (Md.