A landowner is entitled to subjacent support which is the absolute right to have one’s land supported from beneath its surface.  If one person owns the surface of the land while another owns the subjacent surface, the owner of the surface is entitled to retain the land in its natural condition without subsidence caused by the withdrawal of subjacent materials by the subsurface owner.

Damages are granted in subsidence cases depending upon the nature and gravity of the injury.  The damages recoverable for injuries to the surface of land as a result of underground operations are natural, ordinary, or reasonable consequences of the removal of subjacent support.

There is a rule to measure damages in subsidence cases.  If the injury is of a permanent or irreparable nature, the measure of damages is the difference in the market value of the property as a whole that includes the improvements made before and after the injury[i].

However, if the injury is susceptible of repair, the measure of damages will be the reasonable cost of restoration and reasonable compensation for the loss of the use of the property between the time of the injury and the restoration.

Whereas, the burden of showing that the weight of structures on the land contributed to its subsidence rests with the defendant[ii].

In an action to recover damages caused by removal of subjacent support, the loss of a spring or well may be considered as an element making up the value of the land as a whole and damages are to be measured by the difference between the market value of the land before and after the injury.

In Cole v. Signal Knob Coal Co.[iii], a mineral owner, while removing coal from his leasehold, failed to leave sufficient pillars and support for the surface.  As a result, the surface owner’s horse broke through the surface while pasturing and was killed as it fell into the coal mine below.  The surface owner alleged that the mineral owner was negligent.  The court found that the injuries complained were resulted because of the failure of the mineral owner to support the surface owner’s pasture field.  Moreover, the loss resulted directly and immediately from the destruction of the premises, and therefore not remote or speculative.

[i] Ohio Collieries Co. v. Cocke, 107 Ohio St. 238 (Ohio 1923)

[ii] Marin Municipal Water Dist. v. Northwestern P. R. Co., 253 Cal. App. 2d 83 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1967)

[iii] 95 W. Va. 702 (W. Va. 1924)