Gowing v. McCandless, 47866
| Decision Date | 06 March 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 47866,47866 |
| Citation | 547 P.2d 338,219 Kan. 140 |
| Parties | Tommy L. GOWING and Partricia Gowing, Appellees, v. Layton McCANDLESS and Lydian McCandless, Appellants. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where an injury or wrong is classified by the courts not as original or permanent, but as temporary, transient, recurring, continuing or consequential in nature, the limitation period starts to run only when the plaintiffs' land or crops are actually harmed by overflow, and for purposes of the statute of limitations, each injury causes a new cause of action to accrue, at least until the injury becomes permanent.
2. Injuries have been classified as temporary or recurring in nature when caused by an abatable nuisance or condition, or by defects which can be repaired or remedied at reasonable expense. Successive injuries of this nature have been held to give rise to separate and distinct causes of action.
3. The record in an action by upper landowners to recover for temporary damages (crop damages) for an alleged obstruction of a watercourse by the lower landowners is examined, and on appeal it is held: (a) A two year statute of limitations applies; (b) the evidence does not show the injury to be permanent; (c) the evidence does not show a permanent obstruction in the eyes of the law; (d) the trial court did not err in giving instructions; and (e) the verdict of the jury is supported by the evidence presented at the trial.
Philip Shaffer, Salina, argued the cause, and Frank C. Norton, Salina, and Karl Shawver, Shawver & Shawver, Paola, were with him on the brief for appellants.
Keith Martin, Payne & Jones, Chartered, Olathe, argued the cause, and Barry W. McCormick, Olathe, was with him on the brief for appellees.
This is an action by upper landowners to recover $219,457.50 for alleged crop damages and $100,000.00 for punitive damages for an alleged obstruction of a watercurse by the lower landowners. (A second cause of action sought an order requiring the removal of the alleged obstructions, but was not resolved by the trial court when this appeal was taken.) A jury awarded the upper landowners, Tommy and Patricia Gowing (plaintiffs-appellees), the sum of $4,575.00 for crop damages. The lower landowners, Layton and Lydian McCandless (defendants-appellants) have duly perfected this appeal.
The primary issue involves an application of the statute of limitations to the facts in this case. (K.S.A.1975 Supp. 60-513(4).)
The facts disclosed by the record may be summarized as follows. The Gowings own a 350 acre farm in Linn and Miami Counties. The McCandlesses own a 1,350 acre farm in Linn County, part of which is immediately south of and adjacent to the Gowings' land. In this area water flows southward through the Gowings' land to the McCandlesses' land, then empties into the Marais Des Cygnes River which borders the McCandlesses' land. The Gowings allege in 1965, during timber-clearing operations, the McCandlesses obstructed the natural watercourse with trees and dirt which has prevented water from draining from the Gowings' land, thus damaging their crops. Pursuant to K.S.A. 24-105 and K.S.A. 82a-301 the Gowings sought crop damages for 1970, 1971 and 1972, punitive damages, and an injunction that the obstruction be removed. The Gowings dismissed a claim in the pleadings for permanent damages to their property.
The record reveals in the summer of 1965 Layton McCandless contracted with Leonard Long to clear timber on his land. This included clearing timber on land adjoining the Gowings' property. Long employed Elmer Rhoades who used a 'Rome cutter' that shears trees off level with the ground. John Cornett with a bulldozer aided in the clearing by piling the felled timber near the edge of a ditch which served as a watercourse. Some trees, however, were felled into the ditch and others rolled from their piles into the ditch. The ditch which constituted the watercourse was ten to twelve feet deep in places and as much as twenty feet wide in places. In order to cross the watercourse John Cornett made two crossings one by shoving logs which were covered with dirt and the other by dirt filling. Later the log crossing was partially burned out and the dirt crossing was partially excavated. The parties disagreed as to the extent of the obstructions the trees and crossings made. Tommy Gowing testified these obstructions, coupled with a natural silting process, obstructed the wattercourse.
Witnesses for the McCandlesses testified the watercourse was not obstructed. A Mr. Watson, who farmed the McCandlesses' property, and two experts testified the watercourse was not affecting Gowings' runoff water. Various other reasons such as the natural process of trees falling into the watercourse, and floods on the Marais Des Cygnes River carrying timber back up into the watercourse, were alleged to cause any obstructions present in the watercourse. Tommy Gowing and one expert rejected the contention that nature caused the obstructions.
Testimony also differed significantly as to the Gowings' damage. The Gowings contended the poor drainage caused water to stand in the ditches of their drainage system and standing water robs corn of oxygen. Corn seed rots in two or three days if covered with water. Even growing corn can't be covered with water for more than three days without damage. Patricia Gowing, a school teacher and the bookkeeper of the Gowings' household, testified from 1963-1965 the average corn crop was 184 bushels per acre. From 1971-1973 the average corn crop was 37.3 bushels per acre. The Gowings blamed the difference on the poor drainage. Witnesses for the McCandlesses blamed a variety of factors for the poor crops including heavy rainfall, late planting, the direction Gowing plowed the land, failure of Gowing to keep his ditches open, a heavy tractor which compressed the soil, having too shallow ditches and planting corn in 'gumbo' soil which is poor soil for corn especially after corn is grown for a few years in the same location. The statistics of Patricia Gowing were attacked as being improperly figured because corn raised on other land might have been included and the amount of land involved in corn production was said to be underestimated.
Evidence was adduced showing the year 1970 was a bad year for all Linn County farmers. Indeed the office manager for the Linn County Agricultural Soil Conservation Service indicated for the years 1970, 1971 and 1972 the average corn yields were 60 bushels per acre in Linn County. However the Gowings attributed their bountiful 1963-1965 harvest to 'narrow row' farming which they contend increased their productivity far above the average farmer.
The Gowings filed their suit in April of 1972. They allege violation of K.S.A. 24-105 which reads in part:
'It shall be unlawful for a landowner or proprietor to construct or maintain a dam or levee which has the effect of obstructing or collecting and discharging with increased force and volume the flow of surface water to the damage of the adjacent owner or proprietor; . . . Provided, That the provisions of this section shall apply only to lands used for agricultural purposes and highways lying wholly outside the limits of any incorporated city . . ..'
They also alleged violation of K.S.A. 82a-301 which reads in part:
'From and after the passage of this act, it shall be unlawful for any person or persons, partnership, association, corporation, county, city, town, or township to construct any dam or other water obstruction; or to make or construct, or permit to be made or constructed, any change therein or addition thereto; or to make, or permit to be made, any change in or addition to any existing water obstruction; or in any manner to change or diminish the course, current, or cross section of any stream within this state without the consent or permit of the chief engineer of the division of water resources, in writing, previously obtained, upon written application to said chief engineer therefor . . ..'
Neither K.S.A. 24-101a et seq., nor K.S.A. 82a-301 et seq., which the parties cite, contains a special statute of limitations. Therefore a two year statute of limitations applies. K.S.A.1975 Supp. 60-513(4) reads:
'The following actions shall be brought within two (2) years:
* * *
* * *
'(4) An action for injury to the rights of another, not arising on contract, and not herein enumerated.
* * *
* * *
'The cause of action in this section shall not be deemed to have accrued until the act giving rise to the cause of action first causes substantial injury, or, if the fact of injury is not reasonably ascertainable until some time after the initial act, then the period of limitation shall not commence until the fact of injury becomes reasonably ascertainable to the injured party, but in no event shall the period be extended more than ten (10) years beyond the time of the act giving rise to the cause of action.'
Basically the appellants argue Tommy Gowing was aware of the obstruction in 1965, and certainly by 1967 at the latest. Thus the appellants argue the 1972 suit is barred. In support of their argument the appellants point to 1965 when the timber clearing was being done by Elmer Rhoades and John Cornett. At that time Tommy Gowing complained about what was being done. Mr. Gowing told John Cornett he was messing up the drainage. About a week after the timber clearing, Mr. Gowing went on the McCandlesses' property and attempted to burn out the bulldozer crossing made of trees and covered with dirt. Mr. Gowing's testimony indicated he believed the water would be able to run through the obstructed watercourse for a year or so before the obstructions settled and the accumulation of silt began.
Patricia Gowing testified the corn yield dropped from 184 bushels per acre in 1963-1965 to 121 bushels per acre in 1966 and to 40 bushels in 1967...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bolin v. Cessna Aircraft Co., Civ. A. No. 87-1338-T.
...action accrues with each new injury. Williams v. Amoco Prod. Co., 241 Kan. 102, 108, 734 P.2d 1113 (1987) (quoting Gowing v. McCandless, 219 Kan. 140, 144, 547 P.2d 338 (1976)). The plaintiff who seeks to recover temporary damages, however, may only recover for those damages that have accru......
-
Russo Farms, Inc. v. Vineland Bd. of Educ.
...(2d Cir.1985). Essentially, courts in those cases impose a duty on the defendant to remove the nuisance. Accord Gowing v. McCandless, 219 Kan. 140, 547 P.2d 338, 343 (1976) ("[T]he principle upon which one is charged as a continuing wrongdoer is that he has a legal right, and is under a leg......
-
Robert L. Kroenlein Trust v. Kirchhefer
...on the date of the first such act. Cacioppo v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Mo.App., 550 S.W.2d 919 (1977) ; Gowing v. McCandless, 219 Kan. 140, 547 P.2d 338 (1976) ; Shell Oil Company v. Parker, 265 Md. 631, 291 A.2d 64 (1972) ; Nelson v. C & C Plywood Corp., 154 Mont. 414, 465 P.2......
-
Miller v. Cudahy Co.
...jurisdiction where it must be admitted there is some contrariety in our own decisions," id. at 620, 266 P.2d 273); Gowing v. McCandless, 219 Kan. 140, 547 P.2d 338 (1976) ("The statute of limitations question involved on this appeal is one normally encountered where damages occur when water......
-
Too Much of a Good Thing Kansas Law on Unwanted Water
...391 (1949). [FN30]. E.g., Reeder v. Board of County Commissioners, 193 Kan. 182, 392 P.2d 888 (1964). [FN31]. See Gowing v. McCandless, 219 Kan. 140, 547 P.2d 338 (1976). [FN32]. Clawson v. Garrison, 3 Kan. App. 2d 188, 200-201, 592 P.2d 117 (1979). [FN33]. See, e.g., DeWerff v. Schartz, 12......
-
Damage to Real Property: the Lay of the Land
...the injury becomes permanent. McAlister v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 233 Kan. 252, 263, 662 P.2d 1203 (1983), quoting Gowing v. McCandless, 219 Kan. 140, 144, 547 P.2d 338 (1976). If damages are permanent, then the action must be filed within two years of the time the injury became reasonably......