Belue v. City of Greenville

• Citation: 226 S.C. 192,84 S.E.2d 631
• Decision Date: 10 November 1954
• Docket Number: No. 16925,16925
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Parties: Charles S. BELUE, Respondent, v. CITY OF GREENVILLE, Appellant.

Page 631

84 S.E.2d 631

226 S.C. 192

Charles S. BELUE, Respondent, v. CITY OF GREENVILLE, Appellant.

No. 16925.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Nov. 10, 1954.

W. H. Arnold, Greenville, for appellant.

Clement L. McEachern, Greenville, for respondent.

LEGGE, Justice.

Respondent, resident owner of the property at the southwest corner of Boyce Springs Avenue and Charlotte Street, in the City of Greenville, South Carolina, brought this action under what is now Section 59-224 of the 1952 Code praying judgment in the sum of $2,500 for damage to his said property alleged to have resulted from the installation by the city of curbing and guttering on Charlotte Street and at its junction with Boyce Springs Avenue, whereby excessive surface water was thrown upon respondent's lot. Timely motions for nonsuit and for direction of a verdict were made on the part of the defendant and overruled, and the case was submitted to the jury, which rendered its verdict in favor of the respondent in the sum of $1,200. Appellant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or, alternatively, for a new trial, was overruled, and this appeal followed.

Paragraphs III, IV and V of the complaint are in the following language:

'III

'The plaintiff states on August 13, 1951 and on September 6, 1951 there came a rain and the surface waters from adjacent property flowed on the land of the plaintiff at such a rapid rate that considerable damage was caused.

'IV

'The plaintiff's lot located at 16 Boyce Springs Avenue, City of Greenville in the aforesaid State received on the aforementioned dates large quantities of surface water which was dumped on the lot by a drainage ditch which overflowed during a heavy rain causing washes, ditches and leaving deposits of dirt and debris and water on the lot after a heavy rain is from three to six inches deep and it is the duty of the City of Greenville to install proper drains for excessive surface water.

'V

'The plaintiff had the premises fixed to expel excessive surface water that drained down Charlotte Street which is adjacent to the plaintiff's lot and did expel the said surface water but the City of Greenville installed curbing and guttering at Charlotte Street and Boyce Springs Avenue and in the installation did destroy the work of the plaintiff and as a result of the destruction by the employees of the City of Greenville did cause excessive surface water to be dumped on the land of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of $2,500.00'.

The answer, after a general denial, alleged as separate defenses:

(a) That plaintiff's property consists of a low lot affording a natural drain from the surrounding area, as the plaintiff knew or should have known when he bought it, and that his damage, if any, resulted from acts of others for which defendant is not liable;

(b) That the curb and gutter in Charlotte Street was installed at the request of certain property owners along said street, and is beneficial to plaintiff's property because it tends to restrict the water from it; and

(c) That the two rains referred to in the complaint were unprecedented and were acts of God for which the defendant is not liable.

Charlotte Street, the roadway of which is surfaced with tar and gravel runs downgrade from Haviland Street northward to Boyce Springs Avenue, a distance of about 800 feet, the grade being approximately eight per cent. Respondent's lot is about four feet below the level of Boyce Springs Avenue. There are one or more springs near the junction of Charlotte Street and Boyce Springs Avenue, and water from them is, and was prior to the installation of the curbs and gutters on Charlotte Street, carried under Charlotte Street and westward under respondent's lot and the lot adjoining it to the west by a pipe 18 inches in diameter, to an open drainage ditch. This pipe had been laid prior to respondent's acquisition of his lot, and not by the city. At the foot of Charlotte Street the city installed, with the curbing and guttering, two catch basins of standard type approximately 30 inches wide, set into the curb. Prior to the installation of the curb and gutters which was in the spring or summer of 1951, there had been an open ditch on Charlotte Street.

Appellant's contention (Exception I) that the trial court erred in allowing testimony to show that surface water from the streets came upon respondent's property, is without merit. It is apparently based upon the fact that paragraph III of the complaint alleged that the surface waters 'from adjacent property' flowed on respondent's land. The quoted paragraphs of the complaint show the gist of the cause of action to be the flooding of plaintiff's land as the result of the installation of curbs and gutters on Charlotte Street; and it is immaterial whether the water came upon plaintiff's land directly from Charlotte Street or from adjacent lots, if the flooding resulted from that cause.

Appellant also charges error in the refusal of the trial court to direct a verdict in its favor upon the ground that the testimony showed conclusively that the two rains referred to in the complaint were unprecedented, and therefore acts of God. (Exception IV.) It is undisputed that the rains of August 13 and September 6, 1951, were the heaviest during any twenty-four hour period between January 1, 1951, and September 30, 1953. On August 13, 3.71 inches fell within two hours; and on September 6, the rainfall was 6.2 inches, of which 4.75 inches fell within three hours. But granting that such rains were exceptional, or even unprecedented, such fact alone would not be sufficient to support here the defense of 'act of God'.

'The principle embodied in all of the definitions is that the act must be one occasioned exclusively by the violence of nature and all human agency is to be excluded from creating or entering into the cause of the mischief. When the effect, the cause of which is to be considered, is found to be in part the result of the participation of man, whether it be from active intervention or neglect, or failure to act, the whole occurrence is thereby humanized, as it were, and removed from the operation of the rules applicable to the acts of God.' 2 Words and Phrases, p. 176, citing Mincey v. Dultmeier Mfg. Co., 1937, 223 Iowa 252, 272 N.W. 430.

And so it has been held that a rainstorm, as the result of which large quantities of water, which could not escape through a natural water-course because of its obstruction by a city, inundated contiguous land, was not an 'act of God'. Mitchell v. City of Santa Barbara, Cal.App.1941, 120 P.2d 131.

And it is well settled in this State that an act of God must be the sole cause of the injury in order to avail as a defense. Montgomery v. National Convoy & Trucking Co., 186 S.C. 167, 195 S.E. 247; Hutchinson v. City of Florence, 189 S.C. 123, 200 S.E. 73; Morgan v. Greenville County, 189 S.C. 368, 1 S.E.2d 144; Baynham v. State Highway Dept., 181 S.C. 435, 187 S.E. 528.

There was abundant evidence in the instant case to carry to the jury the issue of whether the installation by the city of the curbing, gutters and catch-basins on Charlotte Street was a contributing factor in the flooding of respondent's land.

Appellant contends that the undisputed evidence showed that respondent's lot was the lowest in the area; that a live stream had run through the lot, and had been piped under it by some party other than appellant prior to respondent's purchase of the property; that appellant has the right to use a live stream to carry surface water from its streets; and that the trial judge should therefore have directed a verdict in its favor. But respondent testified that the drainage of his lot was adequate until the city installed the curbing and gutters on Charlotte Street. To quote briefly from his testimony:

'The Court: Let us know further what was the condition before the curbing and guttering was put down. A. Before it was put down I had a good drain from my yard, that taken care of it, a ditch came out of Charlotte into my yard, had a good drain, cement drain that took care of it, and it was clean.

'Q. Where did the ditch go? A. Under my yard; and when they came and put the curbing and guttering naturally had to build up, and build up sidewalks for the future they say; and when they built the curb and gutter they filled in my drain and put another up in the street not large enough to take care of the water, and all the water that comes down Charlotte Street comes into my yard and washes debris into my yard.'

It would serve no useful purpose to discuss the issue of the liability of a municipality, apart from statute, for damage resulting from the construction of a drainage system whereby surface water is thrown into a natural watercourse in such quantity as to cause it to overflow its banks. The present action is laid under our statute, Code 1952, §...