Case Title: Henderson v. Talbott

Citation: 175 Kan. 615, 266 P.2d 273

Docket Number: 39,149

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1954-01-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
175 Kan. 615 (1954)
266 P.2d 273
J.O. HENDERSON, Appellee,
v.
W.A. TALBOTT, Appellant.
No. 39,149

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed January 23, 1954.
E.P. Villepique, of Wichita, argued the cause and I.H. Stearns, of Wichita, and Walter L. McVey, Lawrence McVey, and Walter L. McVey, Jr., all of Independence, were with him on the briefs for appellant.
*616 John M. Wall, of Sedan, argued the cause and was on the briefs for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PARKER, J.:
This was an action to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff because of water impounded on his land as a result of the defendant's construction of a dam. The plaintiff recovered and the defendant appeals.
The action was commenced on October 18, 1951, by the filing of the petition. Subsequently defendant filed a motion to strike one sentence from such pleading and to make other allegations thereof more definite and certain. This motion was sustained to the extent it required plaintiff to make certain allegations of the petition more definite and overruled in all other particulars.
Thereupon, and on May 13, 1952, plaintiff filed his amended petition which, like the original pleading, contained two causes of action and will hereafter be referred to as the petition.
Omitting its prayer and formal averments the petition, as it relates to the first cause of action, states in substance that plaintiff and defendant were each the owner of a farm (describing them) in Montgomery county, joining diagonally at the center of section 23, township 32, range 13 east, and then alleges:
*618 The second cause of action of the petition makes all preceding allegations of that pleading a part thereof. It then alleges:
and prays that defendant be enjoined from impounding water so that it will back up onto plaintiff's land and that he be directed to lower his dam in such manner that water impounded by him will not encroach thereon.
So far as other pleadings are concerned it may be said defendant's answer consists of a general denial followed by specific denials of practically every factual allegation to be found in the petition and that plaintiff's reply denies generally any and all new matter asserted in such answer.
On issues as heretofore related this case came on for trial by a jury as to the first cause of action only. At the trial defendant demurred to plaintiff's evidence for the reason it showed his cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations. When this demurrer was overruled defendant presented his defense. At the conclusion of the trial, after being instructed by the court as to the law, the jury returned a general verdict in favor of plaintiff, together with answers to special questions submitted by the court which read:
"(d) For exemplary or punitive damages. A. 335.00
Following the return of the verdict, and in due time, defendant filed (1) a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict; (2) a motion to set aside the verdict and answers to special questions; and (3) a motion for new trial. Thereafter, each of these motions was overruled and judgment was rendered against the defendant in conformity with the general verdict. Thereupon, defendant gave notice of his appeal from the judgment; from the ruling on his demurrer to the evidence; and from the rulings on all post trial motions.
Although appellant assigns numerous errors the principal issue raised in all but one of them is whether appellee's cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations (G.S. 1949, 60-306, Third) providing:
More specifically, particularly since the parties concede the provisions of the foregoing statute are applicable, a disposition of the over-all issue, to which we have just referred, depends on the answer which must be given the following question: When, under the prevailing law and the confronting facts and circumstances, did appellee's cause of action accrue?
The gist of the trial court's rulings in connection with all such assigned errors is that the limitation period prescribed by the statute had not run on the injuries, pleaded and subsequently established, accruing within the two year period next preceding the date of the filing of the petition. To determine the correctness of these rulings and the judgment we must, in view of the general verdict, apply the law to the facts shown by the evidence favorable to appellee, except as particular matters may have been determined by the answers to the special questions submitted.
*620 Turning to the record it may be said that when carefully reviewed we have no difficulty in concluding it discloses evidence establishing the allegations of the first four of the paragraphs of the petition heretofore quoted; evidence to sustain the finding of the jury (see special question No. 2, supra) respecting the compensatory damages claimed in the next quoted paragraph of that pleading; and evidence sustaining all other answers returned by the jury to the special questions.
A further examination of the record discloses evidence in substance to the effect that appellant constructed the dam on his own farm to dam up a natural watercourse without investigating the location of the watercourse above the dam; that he made no survey to ascertain the expected water level based upon the dam built or the effect it might have on the property of persons owning farms above it; that when appellee first made complaint regarding the dam appellant did not even know there was a spring on appellee's property; that after having been advised of the condition resulting from the dam and after having made alterations thereon in the latter part of August, 1949, which left four or five feet of water impounded on appellee's property, he made no attempt to ascertain the conditions existing on such property with the dam in its altered condition or talk to appellee regarding them; that appellant had some correspondence with appellee in November or December of 1949, but did nothing more on the dam until April, 1950, when it was lowered the second time; that this was before he had seen or talked to appellee; that later in April, 1950, appellant saw and talked with appellee for the first time; that thereafter nothing further was done respecting the dam and that water was still impounded on appellee's land on October 18, 1951, the date on which the action was commenced; and that during the time in question the amount of water impounded on appellee's land was not stationary but ebbed and flowed, depending on the season of the year and the amount of rainfall.
The question when a cause of action for damages because of overflow of land accrues is one beset with difficulties, on which the authorities are in great conflict and exhibit considerable confusion. This is true even in our own jurisdiction where it must be admitted there is some contrariety in our decisions.
Be that as it may we are convinced the rules, established by the great weight of authority and recognized and applied by our better *621 reasoned decisions, governing and decisive of such question as well as the question whether the flooding of land gives rise to a single right or successive rights of action are those succinctly set forth and stated in 56 Am. Jur., Waters, 529, § 45:
And in 56 Am. Jur., Waters, 858, 859, § 443:
For similar statements see 67 C.J., Waters, 729, §§ 70, 71. See, also, 5 A.L.R.2d. Annotation, 322 to 325, incl., § 6, a part of an exhaustive annotation on the question when the statute of limitations commences to run against damages from overflow of land caused by an artificial construction or obstruction, where the following statement, supported by numerous authorities, appears:
*622 Upon resort to our decisions there can be no doubt that the foregoing rules are recognized and adhered to in this jurisdiction. Long ago in K.P. Rly. Co. v. Mihlman, 17 Kan. 224, we said:
Later in Union Trust Company v. Cuppy, 26 Kan. 754, we held:
And in the opinion said:
*623 See, also, Kansas City v. Frohwerk, 10 Kan. App. 120, 62 Pac. 432, which holds:
And in the opinion, in distinguishing Parker v. City of Atchison, 58 Kan. 29, 48 Pac. 631, relied on by appellant as sustaining his position the instant cause of action was barred by the statute, said:
Another decision is Buss v. Missouri Pac. Rld. Co., 120 Kan. 689, 244 Pac. 1059, which holds:
A more recent decision, recognized and applying the same principles in an action for damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff when salt water and oil field waste escaped from a pond maintained on an oil lease being operated by defendant to plaintiff's adjoining land, is Peterson v. Texas Co., 163 Kan. 671, 186 P.2d 259.
See, also, McDaniel v. City of Cherryvale, 91 Kan. 40, 136 Pac. 899, where, although we held that under the confronting conditions and circumstances the action was barred by the statute, we nevertheless said:
When the facts of this case as herein outlined are measured by the foregoing authorities we are forced to the conclusion the injuries for which appellee claims damages must be classified as temporary, not as permanent, and of such nature that each injury *624 sustained by him as a result of the construction of the dam caused a new cause of action to accrue. The result is that appellant's claim the specifications of error presently under consideration should be sustained because the trial court erred, in its rulings holding appellee's cause of action was not barred by the statute of limitations, under either the evidence or the facts as found by the jury, cannot be upheld.
In reaching the conclusion just announced we have not attempted to distinguish and are not disposed to labor the divers cases cited by appellant in support of his position. It suffices to say that some of them can be distinguished because the structure involved was located on the land of the person seeking to recover damages; some are distinguishable because the action was to recover for permanent injuries to the real estate in question; others are not comparable for the reason, that exactly contrary to the situation in the case at bar, the nuisance created by the structure in question was not abatable and the injuries resulting therefrom were continuous and permanent; and still others are not in point because of wholly dissimilar factual situations. And it should be added that if there is language in any of such decisions indicating views contrary to those herein expressed under prevailing conditions and circumstances it is no longer entitled to weight and should be disregarded.
We turn now to other claims of error advanced by appellant as grounds for a new trial and for reversal of the judgment.
The first of these is that there is a discrepancy in Instruction No. 5 as given by the trial court in that it seems to advise the jury that if the evidence warranted it could allow appellee $1 per hour for 924 days for additional labor in caring for his cattle. It is argued this would exceed the statutory period of two years under the trial court's theory respecting the time when the cause of action accrued. We note the next Instruction, No. 5a clearly states, "Therefore plaintiff may recover, if at all, for those damages only, if any, accruing within the 2 year period next preceding the date of filing the petition herein, to-wit, October 18, 1951." There is nothing in the record to indicate the jury was mislead by the mistake or discrepancy in the Instruction of which appellant now complains for the first time. Therefore we must assume the jury followed the clear and unequivocal direction to be found in Instruction No. 5a. Moreover, the amount awarded for this item was less than appellee would have been entitled to under his testimony for the two year period. *625 Under such circumstances any error in the ruling complained of cannot be said to have prejudically affected appellant's substantial rights and, under statutory mandate G.S. 1949, 60-3317, error therein if any must be disregarded. See Allen v. Bowling, 173 Kan. 485, 249 P.2d 679; Blakeman v. Lofland, 173 Kan. 725, 732, 252 P.2d 852, and cases there cited.
Nor are we inclined to labor contentions advanced by appellant to the effect the petition contains no allegations charging him with gross and wanton negligence or warranting the recovery of exemplary damages; that there is error in the Instructions respecting the conditions and circumstances under which punitive or exemplary damages would be allowable; and that the evidence failed to support the finding and allowance of exemplary damages under the Instructions given by the court. In the first instance we believe that when carefully examined the allegations of the petition charge the appellant with specific acts and conduct amounting to gross and wanton negligence in constructing and maintaining the dam and the common nuisance resulting therefrom and, while they may not be all that are to be desired from the standpoint of model pleading, are sufficient to warrant the trial court's conclusion they state grounds for the recovery of exemplary damages. In the next, since we are not limited to the single Instruction of which appellee complains, our examination of the Instructions as a whole convinces us that the jury was fully and correctly advised as to the law applicable to the recovery of exemplary damages under the existing facts and circumstances. Lastly we are satisfied the record discloses enough substantial competent testimony to preclude a decision there was no evidence to support the finding and allowance of exemplary damages.
Perhaps a final point deserves attention. On first blush it may appear the answer to question 5 fixes July, 1949, as the only date on which water was impounded on the appellee's land. Not so. When all the answers to the special interrogatories are considered together and harmonized it is clear the jury interpreted that question as requiring it to fix the first date on which any water was impounded and answered it accordingly.
After an extended examination of the entire record and careful examination of the claims of error advanced by appellant we find nothing to warrant a reversal of the judgment. Therefore such judgment must be and it is hereby affirmed.
*626 WERTZ, J., (dissenting in part):
In my opinion the evidence did not warrant any award of punitive damages and I therefore dissent from that part of the opinion affirming the judgment of the trial court which includes such damages.