LIABILITY OF LOG DRIVING COMPANIES 231 



ever, the company will not be liable for damages to riparian 

 owners or others if it can show the exercise of reasonable 

 precaution against injury to others. l A driving or boom- 

 ing company will ordinarily be liable for damages caused a 

 riparian owner through the raising of the water by dams 

 at a time when the natural flow of the stream would not be 

 sufficient to float logs, 2 but special privileges of this char- 

 acter may be granted to a company by the legislature. 3 



155. Scattered and Stranded Logs. Under the 

 common law the bed of a non-navigable stream is owned by 

 the riparian owners on each side to the middle thread of the 

 stream. From efforts of courts in America to follow the 

 principles of the law as established in England and at the 

 same time conform to the reasonable requirements of 

 changed conditions great confusion and irreconcilable con- 

 flict of decisions have arisen. Some courts have held that 

 those owning land adjoining non- tidal navigable streams 

 owned the bed of the stream to the middle thread, some 

 that the riparian owner controlled the land to the low water 

 mark, and others that the boundary to the lands of riparian 

 proprietors was at the high water mark. By high water 

 mark is here meant, not the highest point reached by the 

 water in a time of freshet, but the elevation at which the 

 water stands for a period of the year sufficient to prevent 

 the growth of perennial vegetation. Some decisions have 

 held that the line marking the ordinary stage of water 

 should constitute the boundary of riparian owners. The 



1. Harold v. Jones, 86 Ala. 274 5 So. 438, 3 L. R. A. 406; White River Log Etc. 



Co. v. Nelson, 45 Mich. 578; Haines v. Welch, 14 Ore. 319; Heator Lbr. Co. 

 v. St. Cfoix Boom Corp., 72 Wis. 62, 7 Am. St. Rep. $37; Field v. Apple River 

 Log Driving Co., 67 Wis. 569 (Injury not trespass). 



But see, Baumgartner v. Sturgeon River Boom Co. (Mich.) 79 N. W. 566 (Hold- 

 ing that it was unnecessary to show negligence on the part of tte boom com- 

 pany, if damage due to raising of water by boom, nor was it necessary to plead 

 no contributory negligence on part of plaintiit.) 



And see Bowers v. Miss. & Rum R. Boom Co. (Minn.) 81 N. W. 208. (Boom 

 company liable for injury though piling not on Bowers ' land, and Bowers given 

 successive actions for the continuing injuries). 



2. Thunder Bay River Booming Co. v. Speechly, 31 Mich. 336, 18 Am. Rep. 184; 



Middleton v. Flat River Booming Co., 27 Mich. 533; See Beard v. Clarke 

 35 Minn. 325; Merriman v. Bowen, 33 Minn. 455; Hackstack v. Keshena 

 Imp. Co., 66 Wis. 439. 



3. Stevens Point Boom Co. v. Reilly, 44 Wis. 295, 46 Wis. 237. 49 N. W. 7S 



