Subjacent support means the support of the surface by the underlying strata of the earth.  It is also defined as the right of the land to be supported by the land which lies under it.  An adjoining landowner is owed subjacent support[i].  Therefore, a party who removes the subjacent support is absolutely liable for damages caused by subsidence[ii].

According to American rule, the surface owner’s right to obstruct, divert or remove the percolating waters under the surface of his/her land is to be exercised in such a way that will not unreasonably injure a similar right by the owner of neighboring land[iii].

The duty of the subjacent owner is not limited to support the surface in a naked condition, but also for the uses to which the surface is naturally adapted[iv].  Similarly, the right to subjacent support is not altered by the use to which the surface owner puts his/her land or whom s/he allows upon it[v].

In Platts v. Sacramento[vi], a property owner brought an action against a railroad for damages resulting from the collapse of a railroad tunnel beneath his property.  The railroad had not excavated the tunnel but it owned the tunnel for many years before the rights passed to the state.  Court observed that the party who removes subjacent support is absolutely liable for damages caused by subsidence, and thus the railroad was not necessarily relieved of liability simply because it had transferred its rights to the state prior to the collapse. However, the defendant’s affidavit in support of its motion negated causation, and the property owner’s declaration contained no facts refuting the defendant’s opinion.  Hence the court affirmed judgment in favor of the defendant.

In Cole v. Signal Knob Coal Co.[vii], 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] Cecola v. Ruley, 12 S.W.3d 848 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2000)

[ii] Platts v. Sacramento N. Ry., 205 Cal. App. 3d 1025 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1988)

[iii] Finley v. Teeter Stone, Inc, 251 Md. 428 (Md. 1968)

[iv] Cole v. Signal Knob Coal Co., 95 W. Va. 702 (W. Va. 1924)

[v] Platts v. Sacramento, 205 Cal. App. 3d 1025 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1988)

[vi] 205 Cal. App. 3d 1025 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1988)

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