Case Title: Canton v. Graniteville Fire District No. 4

Citation: 171 Vt. 551, 762 A.2d 808

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2000-08-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
Canton v. Graniteville Fire District No. 4 (99-429); 171 Vt. 551;
762 A.2d 808 

[Field 22-Aug-2000]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 99-429

                              APRIL TERM, 2000

Karen Q. Canton	                       }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	Washington Superior Court
                                       }	
                                       }
Graniteville Fire District No. 4       }	DOCKET NO. 48-1-96 Wncv

                                                Trial Judge:  David A. Jenkins

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Defendant Graniteville Fire District No. 4 appeals from a jury verdict
  holding it liable for  changing the natural flow of surface water onto
  plaintiff Karen Canton's property and causing  damage in the amount of
  $27,000.  On appeal, defendant claims there was insufficient evidence for 
  the jury to conclude that defendant had changed the natural flow of water. 
  Defendant also appeals  the award of prejudgment interest, arguing that the
  jury as finder of fact in this case, not the judge,  was the correct body
  for determining whether an award of interest was due. We affirm.

       Taken in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the following are the
  facts adduced at trial.  See  McGee Constr. Co. v. Neshobe Dev., Inc., 156
  Vt. 550, 556, 594 A.2d 415, 418 (1991) (jury verdict  sustainable if,
  looking at evidence in light most favorable to verdict winner and excluding
  effect of  modifying evidence, there is any evidence fairly and reasonably
  tending to support it).  Plaintiff  began renting the property she now owns
  in 1979.  She purchased the property from her landlords in  1982.  When she
  moved into the house, in 1979, there was a sump pump in the basement. 
  Through  the years, water would seep in, but only in small quantities, and
  it would be removed by the sump  pump.  Then, in December of 1994,
  plaintiff began to experience flooding in her backyard and  eighteen to
  twenty inches of water in her basement.  

       Defendant fire district owns and operates a public water system in
  Graniteville consisting of a  series of old granite quarries, including
  Barclay and Standard Quarries, which are used as water  reservoirs, and
  which are located on a hill behind plaintiff's house.  Defendant began
  using Standard  Quarry in approximately 1958, and purchased it from Rock of
  Ages granite company in 1962.   Defendant operated the Standard Quarry
  without change in the mode of operation from the time it  began, in 1958,
  until after the start of this litigation.  

       Before the quarries existed, precipitation landing on the hill where
  the quarries are located  would flow down the hill as surface water.  The
  digging of the quarries altered the watershed.  At the  present time,
  instead of running down the hillside, the surface water and water from a
  number of  springs flows into and collects in the quarries.  Excess water
  from the Barclay Quarry flows into the  Standard Quarry, and any overflow
  from Standard Quarry is discharged through 

 

  a culvert, into a grout pile located above and approximately 500 feet from
  the land owned by  plaintiff.  Plaintiff's water problem was caused by the
  overflow from Standard Quarry, flowing  through the grout pile, and
  eventually flowing into plaintiff's backyard.

       At the end of the trial, three issues were submitted to the jury: (1)
  whether defendant changed  the natural flow of water from defendant's land
  to plaintiff's land; (2) whether any such changes  proximately caused
  damage to plaintiff's land; and (3) if so, how much.  The jury found that 
  defendant changed the natural flow of water from defendant's land to
  plaintiff's land by redirecting it,  and that the change in flow of water
  caused damage to plaintiff in the amount of $22,000 in loss of  value of
  her property and $5,000 in annoyance or discomfort.  The trial court added
  costs of $85 and  prejudgment interest of $5,500.  This appeal followed.

       Defendant first argues that there was insufficient evidence to support
  the jury's finding that it  changed the natural flow of water.  Defendant
  argues the evidence at trial showed a predecessor in  interest created the
  quarries and changed the natural flow of the surface water, and therefore 
  defendant should not be held liable.  

       An upper property owner is entitled to have surface water pass to
  lower lands in its natural  condition.  See Swanson v. Bishop Farm, Inc.,
  140 Vt. 606, 610,