This case was heard in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland (Trial Division).

Ms. Webster alleged that her neighbour, Mr. Goff, was responsible for the contamination of the water in her well. Mr. Goff kept sheep and other livestock on his property, and Ms. Webster believed that her well had been contaminated by animal feces.

When the matter came before the Court, Mr. Goff identified a number of other sources that he argued were alternative causes of the contamination, and he denied that he was responsible for contaminating Ms. Webster's well. Mr. Goff also argued that if the Court found him to be responsible for the contamination, the Court should also find Ms. Webster responsible as well, whether for contributing to the contamination directly or for failing to mitigate the problem.

After considering the various theories that Mr. Goff presented as alternative causes of the contamination, the Court held that Mr. Goff was in fact responsible for contaminating Ms. Webster's well. It also held, however, that Ms. Webster had contributed to the problem by permitting her dog to leave droppings in the area around her well. The Court therefore apportioned liability between Mr. Goff and Ms. Webster, holding Mr. Goff 70% responsible and Ms. Webster 30% responsible for Ms. Webster’s losses.

View the Decision on CanLII: https://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlsctd/doc/2000/2000canlii28813/2000canlii28813.html

Disclaimer:
Case briefs in our Resource Library are drafted by law students who work or volunteer with East Coast Environmental Law, and East Coast Environmental Law does not guarantee their fullness or accuracy. Library users should not rely on case briefs as comprehensive accounts of the issues, facts, reasoning, or outcomes at stake in any given case. 

If you require more detailed information about a court decision or legal issue, please consider using our Environmental Law Inquiry Service to request information from our staff.