Irwin v. Michelin Tire Corp., 22500
| Decision Date | 22 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 22500,22500 |
| Citation | 341 S.E.2d 783,288 S.C. 221 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Billy F. IRWIN and Frances L. "Rena" Irwin, Appellants, v. MICHELIN TIRE CORP., Ashemore Brothers, Inc., and Lockwood Greene Engineers, Inc., Defendants, of whom Michelin Tire Corp. is the Respondent. . Heard |
J. Randall Davis, Patrick J. Frawley, of Long, Bouknight, Nicholson, Davis & Young, Lexington; and James B. Richardson, Jr., of Ham & Richardson, Columbia, for appellants.
Heyward E. McDonald, of Rogers, McDonald, McKenzie, Fuller & Rubin, Columbia, for respondent.
Appellants, the Irwins, sued the respondent, Michelin, et al., seeking to recover damages alleged to have resulted to their lower riparian property (a seventeen acre lake) claiming that their damages were caused by the design, construction and/or maintenance of Michelin's manufacturing plant.
Appellants' major contention is that the trial judge's charge did not adequately cover the rights of a lower riparian landowner or, in the alternative, that this Court should adopt what they designate as the "New Jersey Rule." 1 We affirm.
The Michelin facility occupied a two hundred fourteen (214) acre site on which there was a nine hundred three thousand (903,000) square foot plant and a one hundred seventy thousand one hundred (170,100) square foot paved parking area approximately 3,500 feet north of appellants' lake.
Prior to Michelin's acquisition of the undeveloped tract, there was a watershed on it which drained primarily in two directions. Some surface water drained northward away from the direction of the appellants' lake and the remaining surface water drained southward. A portion of this southward-draining surface water entered an eighteen (18) inch culvert under Two Notch Road, and the remainder drained into a stream and exited the Michelin property through a twenty-four (24) inch culvert under Two Notch Road. Water from both culverts merged just south of Two Notch Road, crossed the property of another landowner, and then fed into appellants' lake.
In 1980, before commencing construction of buildings and paved parking lots, Michelin graded portions of its tract and installed a drainage system, which directed water in artificial channels to the culverts through which water and silt were carried downstream into appellants' lake. The parties agreed that silt and other natural materials from the Michelin watershed ran downstream into the lake prior to construction in 1980.
The appellants sued Michelin alleging that it had, by the use of its upper riparian property, damaged the appellants. They sued the defendant Ashemore alleging improper construction, which resulted in damage to their property, and the engineering firm, Lockwood-Greene, alleging error in design of the sediment control and storm drainage system. Ashemore was granted a nonsuit at the conclusion of appellants' case; the jury returned a verdict for Lockwood-Greene, which has not been appealed, and a verdict for the respondent Michelin, which is the subject of this appeal.
Appellants presented testimony that by reason of the construction and paving, an increased volume and flow of water entered the natural watercourse and carried with it silt, which collected in appellants' lake. There was further testimony that the silt caused a weed problem and the increased flow overtaxed spillways, dams, and caused the lake to overflow.
Respondent elicited testimony that the design of the drainage system was such that the acreage of the watershed draining into the stream, the rate of drainage and the amount of water that entered the natural watercourse was unchanged after construction. There was also testimony that no unusual weed problem existed in the lake after construction, and that although the lake had overflowed through the emergency spillway twice during heavy rains in April of 1983, the lake had also overflowed once through the emergency spillway during rains in 1967 prior to this construction project. The record is devoid of any evidence with regard to increased silt as a result of changes made to the property by Michelin.
As framed by the appellants, the sole question is:
Should South Carolina adopt the New Jersey exception to the Common Enemy Rule; namely, that where the land's natural ability to absorb and percolate water is retarded by the installation of an artificial drain system, thereby injuring lower proprietors by an increased volume and hastened flow of water, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heins Implement Co. v. Missouri Highway & Transp. Com'n
...Inc., 269 Ark. 862, 601 S.W.2d 265, 267 (1980); Mattoon v. City of Norman, 617 P.2d 1347, 1349 (Okla.1980); Irwin v. Michelin Tire Corp., 288 S.C. 221, 341 S.E.2d 783, 785 (1986); Mullins v. Greer, 226 Va. 587, 311 S.E.2d 110, 112 (1984).The following courts adhere to the civil rule: Fisher......
-
Johnson v. Phillips
...be modified or abandoned, recent South Carolina decisions adhere to the classical formulation of the rule. See Irwin v. Michelin Tire Corp., 288 S.C. 221, 341 S.E.2d 783 (1986); Williams v. Skipper, 284 S.C. 261, 325 S.E.2d 577 (Ct.App.1985).4 See Kirkland Distributing Co. v. Seaboard Airli......
-
Lucas v. RAWL FAMILY LTD. PARTNERSHIP
...common enemy doctrine flirts with adoption of an expansive view of the "New Jersey Rule" which we rejected in Irwin v. Michelin Tire Corp., 288 S.C. 221, 341 S.E.2d 783 (1986).3 Since, however, the parties tried this matter as if the doctrine were applicable, I agree that we should review w......
-
Silvester v. Spring Valley Country Club
...to this rule prohibits a landowner from using his land in such a manner as to create a nuisance. Id.; see Irwin v. Michelin Tire Corp., 288 S.C. 221, 224, 341 S.E.2d 783, 784 (1986). The traditional concept of a nuisance requires a landowner to demonstrate that the defendant unreasonably in......
-
Common Enemy or Unilateral Threat: Why Jurisdictions Need to Become Reasonable in Regards to Diffuse Surface Waters
...198. Id. 199. Ballard v. Ace Wrecking Co., 289 A.2d 888, 890 (D.C. 1971); Argyelan II, 435 N.E.2d at 974; Irwin v. Michelin Tire Corp., 341 S.E.2d 783, 784, 785 (S.C. 1986); Eiselin v. K-Mart, Inc., 868 P.2d 893, 898 (Wyo. 1994). 200. Ballard, 289 A.2d at 890. 201. Id. 202. Id. 203. Eiselin......