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

If a former owner of an underground tunnel easement removes subjacent support from the surface land, s/he can be made liable for property damage to the surface owner even after the transfer of such property[iii]

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[iv].

In Finley v. Teeter Stone, Inc[v], the landowners claimed that the quarrying operations on adjacent land caused sink holes on their property.  Court examined the difference between English and American rule applicable to the use of percolating waters.  Accordingly, it was observed that percolating waters are those which ooze, seep or filter through soil beneath the surface without a defined channel and not discoverable from surface indications without excavation for that purpose.

Court further observed that under the American rule, the quarry operator carries the right to use the percolating waters under its land for any purpose which is a legitimate use of its land.  Court added that the conducting of quarrying operations was a legitimate and reasonable use of land and therefore the landowners were not entitled to recover as they failed to prove that there was any negligence in excavating or other unreasonable use.

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 decided in favor of the defendant.

[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] Id

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

[v]Id

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