Case Title: Marshall Dean Smith v. City of Atmore

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1130167

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2015-11-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
REL: 11/25/2015
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2015-2016
____________________
1130167
____________________
Marshall Dean Smith
v.
City of Atmore
Appeal from Escambia Circuit Court
(CV-10-0160)
MURDOCK, Justice.
AFFIRMED.  NO OPINION.
Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Shaw, Main, Wise, and Bryan, JJ.,
concur.
Moore, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part.
1130167
MOORE, Chief Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in
part).
Marshall Dean Smith has appealed the summary judgment
entered by the Escambia Circuit Court ("the trial court") in
favor of the City of Atmore ("the City") in Smith's lawsuit
alleging claims of negligent design and construction of the
City's water-drainage system, negligent maintenance of the
City's water-drainage system, continuing trespass, and
nuisance. Although I concur to affirm the summary judgment as
to 
the 
negligent-design 
and 
-construction 
claims, 
I
respectfully dissent from this Court's decision to affirm the
summary judgment as to the other claims because I believe that
Smith presented sufficient evidence to send his negligent-
maintenance claim, and, thus, his trespass and nuisance
claims, see note 1 and accompanying text, infra, insofar as
those claims related to the final two flooding events alleged
by Smith, to a jury.  
When viewed in the light most favorable to Smith, the
nonmovant, see Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. DPF
Architects, P.C., 792 So. 2d 369, 372 (Ala. 2001), the
summary-judgment evidence reflects the following. Smith owns
two properties in the City, both on Tatom Avenue ("the Tatom
2
1130167
Avenue properties"). Those properties are located near the
Highland Avenue drainage system in an area known for its
flooding. Around 1984 a culvert was built in this area to
enable water to drain from the culvert into a ditch that is
approximately four blocks from the Tatom Avenue properties.
The City hired engineer Euel Screws in 2005 or 2006 to examine
problems with the ditch into which the culvert feeds. Screws
determined that the culvert and the ditch were not large
enough, which consequently caused them to overflow 
with water.
Screws recommended that the City install larger piping for the
culvert as well as an additional ditch into which to drain the
water. Screws did not determine how much water the current
drains in the culvert could hold. He informed the City that he
needed to conduct additional studies to assess whether his
recommendations would alleviate the flooding. Despite his
recommendations, the City did not hire Screws to work on the
drainage system, nor did it implement any of his suggested
repairs.
Smith purchased the Tatom Avenue properties in 2008. The
properties subsequently flooded at least five times between
2008 and 2010. After the first flooding event, Smith
3
1130167
telephoned Don Whatley, the City's street superintendent, who
informed Smith that the area around the Tatom Avenue
properties had "flooded for several, several years." 
After 
the
fourth flooding event, Smith telephoned the City's code-
enforcement officer, Chris Black, who referred Smith to
Whatley. This time Whatley told Smith that the area around the
Tatom Avenue properties had "flooded forever." 
Smith sued the City, among other defendants, in 2010,
asserting claims of negligent design and construction of the
drainage 
system, 
negligent 
maintenance 
of 
the 
drainage 
system,
continuing trespass, and nuisance. Smith retained Kenneth
Underwood, an engineer, to serve as an expert witness.
Underwood reviewed the deposition testimony of Screws and
ariel photographs and maps of the area around the Tatom Avenue
properties, visited the area, 
and 
researched rainfall data for
the area. 
Underwood determined that Screws had been correct in
believing that the culvert was not large enough to hold
regular rainfall without flooding the area around the Tatom
Avenue properties. Underwood explained that "[t]he design of
that storm water drainage system has not been maintained to
4
1130167
match increased runoff" and that the size of the existing
culvert "is a very likely contributor" to the flooding issues.
Underwood also stated that the drainage ditch had not "been
maintained by excavation ... to accommodate 
storm 
water runoff
without causing flooding during at least five events which
have caused" the flooding of the Tatom Avenue properties. 
Underwood admitted that, although he agreed with Screws that
the piping for the culvert was undersized, he needed to
complete more "field work" to determine how big the culvert
should be to prevent flooding. He opined that the piping for
the culvert was "a very likely contributor" to –- and "could
be a partial cause" of –- the flooding at the Tatom Avenue
properties.
The trial court entered a summary judgment for the City,
holding that Smith's negligent-design and -construction
claims, as well as his negligent-maintenance claim, his
trespass claim, and his nuisance claim, insofar as those
claims were based on the first three flooding events, were
barred by § 11-47-23, Ala. Code 1975, because those claims
were not presented to the City within six months of when they
accrued. The trial court concluded that Smith had failed to
5
1130167
present 
substantial evidence 
of the 
City's 
negligent
maintenance of the drainage system, under the requirements of
§ 11-47-190, Ala. Code 1975, with respect to the two most
recent flooding events; specifically, the court held, Smith
had failed to prove causation. The trial court also entered a
summary judgment on Smith's nuisance and trespass claims as to
the two most recent flooding events because, it said, Alabama
courts have held that a plaintiff's nuisance and trespass
claims based on the same facts as the plaintiff's negligence
claims under § 11-47-190 survive or perish based on the
viability of the negligence claims.  
1
Smith appealed the summary judgment in favor of the City
to this Court, which today affirms the judgment, without an
opinion. 
See, e.g., Hilliard v. City of Huntsville, 585 So. 2d
1
889, 893 (Ala. 1991) (holding that "the viability of a
negligence action against a municipality under § 11–47–190
determines the success or failure of a nuisance action based
upon the same facts"); Long v. City of Athens, 24 So. 3d 1110,
1116 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (holding that, "because the trial
court properly entered the summary judgment on the Longs'
negligent-maintenance 
claim, 
the 
trial 
court's 
disposal 
of 
the
Longs' nuisance and trespass claims was also proper"); cf.
Royal Auto., Inc. v. City of Vestavia Hills, 995 So. 2d 154,
160 (Ala. 2008). 
6
1130167
Because the area surrounding the Tatom Avenue properties
has "flooded forever," it has probably continued to flood
since 2010, when this case began. It is safe to presume, as
well, that the Tatom Avenue properties will flood again if the
City has not yet taken the corrective measures recommended by
Screws and echoed by Underwood. Although the City has known
since at least 2005 that undersized piping for the culvert is
likely the cause of the flooding, the courts have relieved the
City of any responsibility for fixing the culvert because
causation has not been, in the courts' view, sufficiently
demonstrated. 
To demonstrate that the City was liable for negligent
maintenance, Smith was required to
"present evidence from which a jury could reasonably
conclude that the flooding of [his] property was
proximately caused by the City's failure to provide
appropriate upkeep for the storm-drainage system in
its existing condition, ... rather than by the
City's failure to correct any alleged design or
construction problems with that system."
Reichert v. City of Mobile, 776 So. 2d 761, 765-66 (Ala.
2000). In my view, Smith presented substantial evidence of the
City's negligent maintenance of the drainage system when he
showed that the City was informed of a defect in the culvert
7
1130167
that was progressing over time; that the City had an
opportunity to correct the defect or upgrade the piping for
the culvert that was growing increasingly susceptible to
flooding; and that the City did not hire Screws or anyone else
to correct the defect or upgrade and maintain the piping. I
believe the testimony of Screws and Underwood on this issue
constituted substantial evidence, presented by experts,
demonstrating that the City was derelict in responding to a
known defective condition of the culvert. 
I am concerned, as well, that the courts have encouraged
the City to continue ignoring known problems with the piping
for the culvert and the drainage system. The reason Screws was
unable to provide more evidence of causation is because the
City never hired him to do the necessary work to alleviate the
flooding. If the City continues to sit on its hands, as it
were, will it continue to profit from inactivity? Is the City
better off not hiring anyone to repair the conditions leading
to the flooding because doing so will ensure that causation
cannot be determined? Smith and others in his position, after
all, cannot legally hire someone to work on the piping for the
culvert or the drainage system that is owned and operated by
8
1130167
the City; thus, they are at a distinct disadvantage and must
wait anxiously for the City to correct a long-standing problem
that is sure to persist. I am concerned that the courts are
encouraging the City's profitable idleness by closing their
eyes to substantial evidence that should have gone before a
jury. 
9