Buxel v. King County
| Decision Date | 23 August 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 36107,36107 |
| Citation | 374 P.2d 250,60 Wn.2d 404 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | Emelie BUXEL, Respondent, v. KING COUNTY, a legal subdivision of the State of Washington, Appellant. |
Charles O. Carroll, Pros. Atty., James J. Caplinger, Chief Civil Deputy, William L. Paul, Jr., Deputy Pros. Atty., Seattle, for appellant.
Todd & Goodloe, Seattle, for respondent.
This in an action for damages for trespass by water or taking land without just compensation. The trial court granted judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant, King County, has appealed.
The respondent's land, on which is situated her residence, is located near Des Moines Way and South 107th Street in King County. Respondent alleged that the county collected surface waters in drains or artificial channels along the west side of Des Moines Way and caused them to be diverted beneath Des Moines Way at South 207th Street, thence along the north side and under South 207th Street, and onto her property. At the trial respondent contended that the surface waters thus spewed onto her land made ingress and egress difficult, and caused the value of her property to be depreciated.
The county did not deny respondent's allegations and contentions. Its defense was essentially a disclaimer of liability for respondent's drainage problems.
Respondent and her now deceased husband acquired the property concerned in 1921. From the time of acquisition until 1958, a drainage problem existed on the land caused by waters draining from surrounding areas of higher elevation through the system of culverts and ditches described above. The drainage was described at the trial as 'seepage.' Although it caused inconvenience, from what we can discern from the record no appreciable damage resulted. During 1958 and 1959 (the exact dates are nowhere supplied in the record), the county improved the roadways in the vicinity of Des Moines Way amd South 200th. It appears that property owners on the east side of Des Moines Way near that area were bothered by drainage waters. To alleviate the drainage problem of those property owners, the county, in connection with road improvement work, placed a culvert beneath Des Moines Way at South 200th. Since installation of the culvert, waters from the east side of Des Moines Way have drained to the west side, where they combine with waters draining down the west side, and follow a channeled course to respondent's property. The additional waters have changed respondent's relatively minor seepage problem to an inundation problem.
The trial court found, in effect, that the flow of water across respondent's land was increased by the acts of the county, and that the county must bear the responsibility for solving the problem. The difference between the value of respondent's property after the increased flow as compared with its value prior thereto was found to be $2,350.66. That figure was derived from testimony as to the estimated costs of underlaying respondent's property with drain pipe th handle the flow. Judgment was entered for the respondent, requiring the county to underlay respondent's land with drain pipes and pay the sum of $300 attorney's fees; or, in the alternative, to pay to respondent $2,650.66 ($2,350.66 for the cost of laying the drain pipe and $300.00 attorney's fees) plus costs and disbursements.
The respondent contends that the county's assignments of error are improper and fail to raise any question before this court. While the manner in which error is assigned is not commendable, we find that for the purposes of this case justiciable issues are presented to the court, and we will consider the arguments on their merits.
King County argues that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed, because (1) respondent's claim is barred by the statute of limitations; (2) the flow across respondent's land is of surface waters in a natural drainage course and no responsibility can attach for increasing or hastening the flow; and (3) the county has no drainage district powers and is without jurisdiction to order drainage work or to pay general tax money for the drainage work. A fourth contention need not be considered, becuase no argument was directed in support thereof in appellant's brief. Obde v. Schlemeyer (1960), 56 Wash.2d 449, 353 P.2d 672.
In support of its first contention the county argues that the system of culverts and ditches located in the drainage area herein concerned was first established around 1920 and, therefore, if there has been any taking of respondent's land by virtue of trespass by water, as a result of the drainage system, it occurred when the system was first constructed. Thus, the county concludes, it is much too late in the game for respondent to complain.
The county's contention is unavailing. Respondent does not base her action on the inconsequential invasions of her property, caused by the county's maintenance of the primary system of ditches and culverts occurring prior to the diversion of waters accomplished by the 1958-59 project. Indeed, these invasions probably did not provide a basis for relief. Wood v. City of Tacoma (1911), 66 Wash. 266, 119 P. 859. See, generally, 18 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, §§ 53.132-53.144, pp. 515-563 (3rd ed. 1950). The injury about which respondent complains occurred when the acts of the county caused the flow of waters across her property to increase to the extent that substantial damage resulted....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phillips v. King County
... ... at 432-33, 903 P.2d 464, albeit in 1928, before the plaintiffs' purchased their property, so that the purchase price should have reflected the diminished value of their land due to periodic flooding ... Our conclusion is also consistent with Buxel v. King County, 60 Wash.2d 404, 374 P.2d 250 (1962). There, to alleviate the drainage problem of certain property owners on the east side of Des Moines Way, the county placed a culvert beneath Des Moines way. [943 P.2d 319] The culvert caused storm water draining from the east side of the road to ... ...
-
Pruitt v. Douglas County
... ... Hedlund v. White, 67 Wash.App. 409, 418 n. 12, 836 P.2d 250 (1992) (citing Buxel v. King County, 60 Wash.2d 404, 409, 374 P.2d 250 (1962)) ... "Negligent trespass" requires proof of negligence (duty, breach, ... ...
-
Pepper v. J.J. Welcome Const. Co.
... ... William Backstrom, wife and husband, Respondents, ... King County, a municipal corporation, Additional Respondent ... No. 29128-9-I ... Court of Appeals ... Buxel v. King Cty., 60 Wash.2d 404, 407, 374 P.2d 250 (1962). There is no dispute that Pepper knew of ... ...
-
Hedlund v. White
... ... greater than, or in a manner different from, the natural flow of such surface waters." King Cy. v. Boeing Co., 62 Wash.2d 545, 552, 384 P.2d 122 (1963); Wilber Dev. Corp. v. Les Rowland ... property by five ditches or pipes); Colella, 72 Wash.2d at 390, 433 P.2d 154; King County v. Boeing Co., 62 Wash.2d at 551-52, 384 P.2d 122; Buxel v. King Cy., 60 Wash.2d 404, 374 P.2d 250 ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...86 Wn.2d 1007 (1975): 11.2(2), 11.2(4), 11.2(8) Butzberger v. Foster, 151 Wn.2d 396, 89 P.3d 689 (2004): 17.19 Buxel v. King County, 60 Wn.2d 404, 374 P.2d 250 (1962): 11.4 C_____________________________________________________________________ Canron, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 82 Wn.App. 480, ......
-
Table of Cases
...App. 505, 958 P.2d 343 (1998), review denied, 137 Wn.2d 1015 (1999): 7.3(3), 7.4(2)(a), 7.5(3), 13.3(5)(a), 15.3(7) Buxel v. King Cnty., 60 Wn.2d 404, 374 P.2d 250 (1962): 19.4(1),19.4(1) c____________________________________________________________________________________________ Caffall B......
-
§ 19.4 - Trespass
...Dist., 75 Wn.2d 302, 305, 450 P.2d 488 (1969)). Affirmative acts are required to support a finding of intent. See Buxel v. King Cnty., 60 Wn.2d 404, 409, 374 P.2d 250 (1962) (culvert installed under road changed drainage pattern, causing plaintiff's property to flood); Hedlund v. White, 67 ......
-
§11.4 - Trespass
...of time by water, oil, sludge, and sewage). Trespass by water is an established concept under Washington law. See Buxel v. King Cnty., 60 Wn.2d 404, 374 P.2d 250 (1962). Arguably, water damage could be the basis for liability under RCW 4.24.630, the timber trespass statute, which provides f......