FLOOD09315 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In addition to negligence, other legal theories tave been used to impose liability on municipalities for faulty construction and main- tenance of drainage improvements. Thus, a municipElity may incur liability for trespass, Barberton v. Miksch, 128 Ohio St. 169, 190 N.E. 387 (1934) (casting water upon the la~d of another by seepage or percolation resulting from the construction and maintenance o~ a reservoir was a trespass by municipality); an un<:onstitutional taking, Mosley v. City of Lorain, 40 Ohio St. 2d 334, 358 N.E. 2d 596 (1976), (city had effectively appropriated the plaintiffls pro- perty by cons truc t ing a storm sewer s ys tern which channe lIed a grea te r volume of water into the creek than the creek could reas:mably be expected to handle without flooding); Lucas v. Carr~, 167 Ohio St. 416, 149 N.E. 2d (1958) (construction of a public i~provement on county property, which greatly i'creased the amoune and force of surface water which flowed onto the plaintiffls property overflowing and inundating it, raised a claim of E.ro tanto app~opriation); or nuisance, Mansfield v. Bolleet, 65 Ohio St. 451, 63 N.E. 86 (1902) (municipality is liable if it causes drainage to be emptied into a natural watercourse a~d substantially damages a lower landowner). Even in the absence of negligence, nuisance, trespass or taking, the evolving doctrine of inverse condemnation is being used to permit landowners to obtain compensation from a municipality where storm runoff from municipal projects are diverted across another's la.d on the theory that the city has taken a drainage easement. Thus, like an easement for noise emanating from the municipal airport, physical entry by the govern~ental entity or statutory allowance of compensatory damages is not required in order for landowners to recover. In several Colorado cases, however, municipalities have not incurred liability for faulty constructio~ where they are found to be upper proprietors with a natural easement for drainage - even when water is sent down in a manner or quantity to do more harm than formerly. City of Englewood v. Linkenheil, 362, P.2d 186 (1961) (city's action in channelin~ water by systEm of drains, catch basins, intakes, and pipes, from higher place to place contiguous to land of plaintiff, which was a natural drainage area, so as to over- flow onto the land of plaintLff did not constitute a taking of pro- perty without just compensation); City and County of Denver v. Stanley Aviation Corporation, 143 Colo. 182, 352 p.2d 291 (1960) (plaintiff could not recover from city for damage caused by flood waters which backed onto lower land on theory that city had bee0 negligent or failed to use due care in installing a pipe adequate to carry the waters); Aicher v. Deover, 10 Colo. App. 413, 52 P. 86 (1897) (city not liable for damage where street grade was cha~ged, trolley tracks permitted iG street, a culvert built too small, but landowner declared to be in the unfortunate position of having built below the grade of the street). (4 ) 1-15-80 - - ~