Mayor, Etc., of Brunswick v. Tucker

• Decision Date: 21 December 1897
• Parties: MAYOR, ETC., OF BRUNSWICK v. TUCKER.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

29 S.E. 701

103 Ga. 233

MAYOR, ETC., OF BRUNSWICK v. TUCKER.

Supreme Court of Georgia

December 21, 1897

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A municipal corporation is liable to a property owner for damage sustained by a negligent failure to keep its drains and sewers in repair; thus causing surface water to pond upon such property, and render it less valuable for use and occupation.

2. The amount of the verdict as voluntarily reduced by the plaintiff was authorized by the evidence, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Error from superior court, Glynn county; J. L. Sweat, Judge.

Action by Mary A. Tucker against the mayor and council of the city of Brunswick. Verdict for plaintiff. New trial denied, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Owens Johnson, W. E. Kay, and John M. Graham, for plaintiff in error.

Courtland Symmes, for defendant in error.

COBB J.

Mrs Tucker brought suit against the mayor and council of the city of Brunswick to recover damages for the alleged negligence of the municipal authorities in allowing certain street drains to become clogged by wood and sand, thus gradually raising the level of the drains so that the surface water, which was formerly carried away from a lot owned by her by means of such drains, was caused to settle and become ponded thereon with no means of outlet. It appears that in 1868 the city of Brunswick leased the premises to one Coleman, his heirs and assigns, and that he afterwards assigned the lease to the plaintiff, who entered in possession in 1877, and has so remained to the present time. The premises consisted of three city lots, containing about one-half of an acre of ground bounded on all sides by streets. Upon the premises was a dwelling, which was occupied at least five years before plaintiff's entry. This dwelling was on that portion of the premises which was unaffected by the overflow, while the garden was below the level of the street. In June, 1889, a heavy rainstorm came, which partly filled up the larger drain, and caused the water to back and settle upon the premises of the plaintiff. Upon the question of negligence the evidence was conflicting. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $1,950, $950 of which was voluntarily written off. The defendant made a motion for a new trial, in which it was alleged that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence, and, furthermore, that the evidence showed that the plaintiff sustained no loss, and that the defendant acted simply in its governmental capacity, and was not liable for injuries happening to plaintiff by surface water. This motion was overruled, and the defendant excepted.

1. If a municipal corporation adopt a general plan for the improvement of its streets and drains, and in carrying such plan into execution is guilty of negligence whereby a property owner is damaged, it is liable in damages to the latter. 2 Dill. Mun. Corp. (4th Ed.) § 1051. It follows that if a municipal corporation construct its streets and drains in such a negligent manner that...