City of Meridian v. Bryant

Decision Date10 March 1958
Docket NumberNo. 40695,40695
Citation100 So.2d 860,232 Miss. 892
PartiesCITY OF MERIDIAN, Mississippi, v. Joe BRYANT and Mrs. Pearl Bryant.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Ethridge, Minniece & Bourdeaux, Meridian, for appellant.

Williamson & Williamson, Meridian, for appellee.

LEE, Justice.

Joe Bryant and wife, Mrs. Pearl Bryant, sued the City of Meridian, Mississippi, in the County Court of Lauderdale County for damages to their property. From a verdict and judgment in their behalf, the city appealed to the circuit court, where the judgment was affirmed. The city has prosecuted its appeal here.

The declaration charged in effect that the city, in constructing and maintaining storm sewers and outlets near the plaintiffs' property, altered and interfered with the natural surface of the soil and the natural flow of water, and negligently caused or permitted dirt and sand to accumulate and remain in that condition; that the accumulation, so remaining on the hard surfaced portion of the street and on the concrete sidewalk, interfered with the natural flow of the water and its access to an artificial sewer installed by the city; that the water, on that account, accumulated at this point and overflowed into their premises and thereby damaged their garden, fruit trees and dwelling house; and that the city, although notified of such situation, failed and refused to remedy it.

The city's motion for a bill of particulars was overruled except as to the nature and extent of the damage. The answer denied the material allegations of the declaration, and alleged that, if any changes of any kind were made, the same were the acts of contractors; and that the water was following the same course as it had done for many years.

The evidence for the plaintiffs was to the following effect: They lived at 1613 Eighth Avenue, on the west side thereof, in the City of Meridian, near the intersection of Marion Road. Surface water drained down the avenue from north to south. Just north of the home of the plaintiffs, for many years, an underground storm sewer went under the street from east to west, receiving and disposing of the water from the east ditch. This sewer also had an opening on the west side and received the water from that ditch. Thus from both sides of the avenue water was carried underground to a point behind the property of the plaintiffs, where it was discharged. The city hauled quantities of sand and put it on the surface of the avenue to fill ruts. This sand did not mix with the soil, but washed down to and above the opening of the storm sewer, near an oak tree, on the west side, and, with the other debris, stopped up the opening and prevented the escape of the water. As a result, the dollected water flowed over the sidewalk and onto the premises of the plaintiffs, damaging their garden, flowers and shrubs, and causing the foundation of the house to rot. Several witnesses gave corroboration both as to the cause of the overflow of water and the resultant damage. The proof also showed that this condition was brought to the attention of the city, and that it failed to remedy the situation.

One witness for the city had never noticed the sewer opening near the oak tree, but he admitted that he had seen accumulations of sand and debris, higher than the sidewalk, with water flowing over the sidewalk six or eight inches deep. An employee of the city disclaimed any knowledge of the sewer opening on the west side, although the other proof was that it had been there many years. The other testimony for the city was to the effect that the water was flowing over a natural course which had been followed from time immemorial, and in minimization of the damages of the plaintiff.

The city contends here that there was no change in the grade; that it had the right to keep its streets in a reasonably safe condition; that it did not collect and turn loose surface water on the plaintiffs' property; that the proof failed to show any responsibility of the city with reference to the drain or opening; that the water ran over the sidewalk before it got to the opening, even if the city had been guilty of negligence in allowing it to stop up; and that for these reasons, it was entitled to its requested peremptory instruction.

The cases of City of Vicksburg v. Porterfield, 164 Miss. 581, 145 So. 355, and Cain v. City of Jackson, 169 Miss. 96, 152 So. 295, and those which follow them, are a complete answer against the city's contention.

In the Porterfield case, supra [164 Miss. 581, 145 So. 357], the drain under an embankment was obstructed by dirt, tin cans, and other debris, so that the mouth was covered. As a result the water was impounded and rose into the houses on the west side. The city refused to remedy the situation. The opinion said that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Fortenberry v. City of Jackson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 20 Octubre 2011
    ...in order to provide reasonably safe conditions. See City of New Albany v. Barkley, 510 So.2d 805 (Miss.1987); City of Meridian v. Bryant, 232 Miss. 892, 100 So.2d 860, 862 (1958); City of Meridian v. Sullivan, 209 Miss. 61, 45 So.2d 851 (1950); Cain v. City of Jackson, 169 Miss. 96, 152 So.......
  • Fortenberry v. City Of Jackson, 2008-CT-00270-SCT
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 10 Febrero 2011
    ...order to provide reasonably safe conditions. See City of New Albany v. Barkely, 510 So. 2d 805 (Miss. 1987); City of Meridian v. Bryant, 100 So. 2d 860, 862 (Miss. 1958); City of Meridian v. Sullivan, 45 So. 2d 851 (Miss. 1950); Cain v. City of Jackson, 152 So. 295 (Miss. 1934) City of Vick......
  • Index Drilling Co. v. Williams
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 5 Febrero 1962
    ...in advance to the return of such a verdict. Buckeye Cotton Oil Co. v. Owen, 122 Miss. 14, 84 So. 133 (1920); City of Meridian v. Bryant, 232 Miss. 892, 100 So.2d 860 (1958). There is no affirmative showing in the instant case that the jurors agreed in advance to return a quotient verdict. T......
  • Smith v. City of Gulfport, 2005-CA-01153-COA.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Mississippi
    • 13 Febrero 2007
    ...judges that testimony in the light that that is weak opinion testimony, albeit that it's lay. ¶ 23. Smith cites City of Meridian v. Bryant, 232 Miss. 892, 100 So.2d 860 (1958); Cain v. City of Jackson, 169 Miss. 96, 152 So. 295 (1934); and City of v. Porterfield, 164 Miss. 581, 145 So. 355 ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT