Page v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 50104

Decision Date13 April 1964
Docket NumberNo. 50104,No. 1,50104,1
Citation377 S.W.2d 348
PartiesChester PAGE and Frances Page, His Wife, Appellants, v. The METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT, a Municipal Corporation and Political Subdivision, Respondent
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Librach, Heller, Byrne & Weber, William P. Byrne, St. Louis, for appellants.

Thompson, Mitchell, Douglas & Neill, James M. Douglas, David F. Ulmer, St. Louis, for respondent, The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist.

HOUSER, Commissioner.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis sustaining the motion of Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, hereinafter 'MSD,' to dismiss and dismissing the following petition filed against MSD by Chester and Frances Page:

'SECOND AMENDED PETITION FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION.

'COUNT I.

'Plaintiffs, for Count I of their cause of action, state:

'1. That they are husband and wife and owners of a certain parcel of land known as Lot 58 of Robinwood subdivision known and numbered as 705 Derhake Road, Florissant, Missouri.

'2. That the defendant is now and at all times hereinafter mentioned was a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of Law, with an office and place of business in the City of St. Louis, Missouri, and engaged in the business of constructing, supervising, maintaining, controlling and regulating sewers and ditches in and around the Metropolitan St. Louis area; that at all times hereinafter mentioned defendant controlled, supervised, maintained and regulated the hereinafter described drainage ditch.

'3. Plaintiffs further state that there is located adjacent to their said property a ditch used for drainage purposes, said ditch being an easement in and upon the property of these plaintiffs and their adjoining property owner, said easement being an easement of record in Book 3305, Page 603 in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds for St. Louis County, Missouri.

'4. Plaintiffs further state that since and before May 1960, said ditch has gradually and constantly widened and deepened causing the property of plaintiffs to crumble, collapse and wash away, thus diminishing the size of plaintiffs' lot; that said ditch constituted a public nuisance, and private nuisance, is dangerous to the health and welfare of the residents of the community and to the plaintiffs; that water from said ditch constantly floods and overflows into and upon plaintiffs' land and property; that these plaintiffs have been deprived of their right of lateral support for their property, and will in the future be deprived of their right of lateral support; that, to date, by virtue of being deprived of their right of lateral support, plaintiffs have been damaged in the sum of FOURTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($14,500.00) that plaintiffs' are thereby unable to rent said premises because of the conditions herein stated and will in the future incur continuing damages in the sum of ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100.00) per month, and are in danger of suffering irreparable damage to their property if the conditions herein mentioned are allowed to exist; that, although defendant has long known of the aforesaid condition, it has willfully and wrongfully failed and refused to take any steps to remedy these conditions so as to prevent further collapse of ground and loss of property to these plaintiffs and a flooding of their land and property; although requested to do so; that plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

'WHEREFORE, for Count I of their Petition, plaintiffs pray an order of this Court awarding them FOURTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($14,500.00) damage for the loss of their property, and further, an order directing and requiring defendant to fill in said ditch and to build a retaining wall to provide plaintiffs with lateral support for their property, and for such further orders as this Court may deem just and proper, together with their costs expended herein.

'COUNT II.

'Plaintiff, CHESTER PAGE, for Count II of his Petition, states:

'1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all of the allegations of Count I, and further states:

'2. That all of the acts and omissions of Defendant which plaintiffs herein complain were performed and committed in a manner that was and is willful, wrongful, wanton, malicious, and inhuman.

'3. That by reason thereof, plaintiff, CHESTER PAGE has been caused great worry about the safety of his wife, his children, persons on and about said premises, himself and his property, and has suffered and will in the future suffer great mental pain and mental anguish, all to his damage in the sum of TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000.00).

'WHEREFORE, plaintiff, CHESTER PAGE, prays judgment against defendant on County II in the sum of TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000.00).

'COUNT III.

'Plaintiff, FRANCES PAGE, for Count III of her Petition, states:

'1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all of the allegations of Count I, and further states:

'2. That all of the acts and omissions of Defendant which plaintiffs herein complain were performed and committed in a manner that was and is willful, wrongful, wanton, malicious, and inhuman.

'3. That by reason thereof, plaintiff FRANCES PAGE has been caused great worry about the safety of her husband, her children, persons on and about said premises, herself and her property, has suffered and in the future will continue to suffer great mental pain and mental anquish; all to her damage in the sum of FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,000.00).

'WHEREFORE, plaintiff, FRANCES PAGE, prays judgment against defendant on Count III, in the sum GIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,000.00).'

MSD's motion to dismiss alleged that the petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted in that defendant is a political subdivision of the State of Missouri exercising governmental functions and is not subject to suit upon the claim stated in the petition. Following the dismissal of the petition plaintiffs appealed.

We have jurisdiction for the reason that the amount in dispute exceeds the sum of $15,000.

In support of its position that the court erred in sustaining the motion to dismiss on the theory of governmental immunity appellants make four points:

I. That the Plan of MSD, page 1, Art. 1, Sec. 1.010, establishing MSD, vests it with 'power to * * * sue and be sued * * *.' Appellants contend this gives them the unqualified right, and modified elsewhere in the Plan, to maintain a suit against MSD.

II. That the maintenance of sewers is not a governmental function but is a ministerial function for which a municipality may be liable in damages for negligence. The contention is that MSD assumed control over a natural watercourse and used it for drainage purposes with a resulting injury to them, thereby engaging in a ministerial function. They cite Lucas v. City of Louisiana, Mo.App., 173 S.W.2d 629, and Windle v. City of Springfield, 320 Mo. 459, 8 S.W.2d 61, in support of this contention.

III. That the doctrine of governmental immunity does not apply in a suit for damages resulting from the maintenance of a nuisance. Appellants cite Rodgers v. Kansas City, Mo.App., 327 S.W.2d 478; Windle v. City of Springfield, supra, and Bungenstock v. Nishnabotna Drainage Dist., 163 Mo. 198, 64 S.W.2d 149, on this point.

IV. That the dismissal of appellants' petition amounts to a taking of private property for public use without just compensation, in violation of Article I, Section 26, Constitution of Missouri 1945, V.A.M.S., citing Bruntmeryer v. Squaw Creek Drainage Dist. No. 1, 196 Mo.App. 360, 194 S.W. 748.

The circuit court did not err in dismissing the petition on the ground of governmental immunity.

I.

Section 1.010 of the Plan, vesting MSD with the power to sue and be sued, does not authorize an action against it for damages for negligence or nuisance, because it contains no express agreement that MSD be liable on such claims. 81 C.J.S. States Sec. 130, p. 1141, fn. 94. There is a marked difference between waiver of immunity of MSD from an action and waiver of immunity of MSD from liability for damages for the torts of its officers and agents. Todd v. Curators of University of Missouri, 347 Mo. 460, 147 S.W.2d 1063; Bush v. State Highway Commission, 329 Mo. 843, 849, 46 S.W.2d 854, 856. An 'authorizing' statute in this context would mean a statute which specifically provides for the payment of damages caused by the negligence, etc. of the officers and agents of MSD. Hill-Behan Lumber Co. v. State Highway Commission, 347 Mo. 671, 148 S.W.2d 499, 500. There is no such statute or constitutional provision.

II.

The defendant, a metropolitan sewer district organized for the purpose of providing adequate sewer and drainage facilities within its boundaries, established by vote of the people in the district pursuant to Article VI, Section 30 of the Constitution of Missouri, 1945, is a public corporation, (Sec. 1.010, Plan of the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District) exercising only governmental powers and engaging in the performance of purely governmental functions, clothed as such with the state's immunity from tort liability, in the absence of express constitutional or statutory provisions to the contrary. State ex rel. Hausgen v. Allen, (en banc) 298 Mo. 448, 250 S.W. 905; City of Hardin v. Norborne Land Drainage Dist., 360 Mo. 1112, 232 S.W.2d 921; Anderson v. Inter-River Drainage and Levee Dist., 309 Mo. 189, 274 S.W. 448; Arnold v. Worth County Drainage Dist. No. 1, 209 Mo.App. 220, 234 S.W. 349; Tant v. Little River Drainage Dist., 210 Mo.App. 420, 238 S.W. 848. This is the general rule. 28 C.J.S. Drains Sec. 51a, p. 389.

The argument that the maintenance of sewers is not a governmental but is a ministerial function for which a municipality may be liable in damages for negligence stands for disapproval, as applied to the instant facts. While in the broadest sense of the term a metropolitan sewer district is a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 cases
  • Heins Implement Co. v. Missouri Highway & Transp. Com'n, 75313
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • August 17, 1993
    ... . Page 681 . 859 S.W.2d 681 . 62 USLW 2128 . HEINS ... plans in Owen specified that the sewer plant to be built in that case would use heavy ... Camden Special Road Dist. of Ray Cty. v. Taylor, 495 S.W.2d 93, 98 ...Louis v. Gruss, 263 S.W.2d 387, 394 (Mo.1954). . ... See Page v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 377 S.W.2d 348, 353-54 . ......
  • Colman v. Utah State Land Bd.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • April 12, 1990
    ... . Page 622 . 795 P.2d 622 . William J. COLMAN, ...District Court, Fourth Judicial Dist., 94 Utah 384, 393, 78 P.2d 502, 506 (1937). In ... damage caused by negligent construction of sewer system arises from Alabama constitution, not from ...Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 377 S.W.2d 348, 354 ......
  • Jones v. State Highway Commission, 60017
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 12, 1977
    ...and State Highway Commission to obscure ones such as county agricultural and mechanical societies. 16 Page v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 377 S.W.2d 348, 352 (Mo.1974); Hill-Behan Lumber Co. v. State Highway Commission, 347 Mo. 671, 148 S.W.2d 499, 500 (1964); Todd v. Curators of Un......
  • State ex rel. Milham v. Rickhoff, 63299
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 11, 1982
    ...827 (Mo.1960).5 St. Louis Housing Auth. v. City of St. Louis, 361 Mo. 1170, 239 S.W.2d 289 (banc 1951).6 Page v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 377 S.W.2d 348 (Mo.1964).7 State ex rel. Halferty v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 346 Mo. 1069, 145 S.W.2d 116 (1940).8 City of Olivette v. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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