Case Title: City of Birmingham v. Leberte

Citation: 773 So. 2d 440

Docket Number: 1981172

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2000-04-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
773 So. 2d 440 (2000)
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM
v.
Christopher A. LEBERTE et al.
1981172.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
April 21, 2000.
*441 Demetrius C. Newton, city atty., and Michael M. Fliegel, asst. city atty., City of Birmingham, for appellant.
M. Clay Ragsdale and M. Stan Herring of Law Offices of M. Clay Ragsdale, Birmingham, for appellees.
COOK, Justice.
The City of Birmingham (the "City") appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict against it and in favor of the owners of seven parcels of residential property (collectively "the owners"). The judgment awarded damages for harm caused by floods the owners said were caused by *442 negligence on the part of the City. We affirm.
The present action was commenced on December 13, 1996, against the City by 11 plaintiffs, namely, Christopher Leberte and Sandra Leberte; Larry Teston and Carrie Teston; Henry Sutherland and Ollie Sutherland; Albert Speed; Esther Hogeland and O.B. Hogeland; and Victor Coleman and Faye Coleman. The complaint contained the following pertinent allegations:
(Emphasis added.) The complaint contained four counts, namely, (1) a count alleging negligence, (2) a count alleging nuisance and trespass, (3) a count seeking damages for inverse condemnation, and (4) a count seeking injunctive relief. The plaintiffs sought compensation for "diminution in the value of their real property, physical damage to their land and structures, mental anguish, embarrassment, and damage to ... personalty." On January 9, 1997, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to add as an additional plaintiff Joseph Hardmond, who "assert[ed] all claims as set forth in the original complaint."
The City moved to dismiss the action on various grounds, including the ground that the claims of a number of the plaintiffs had already been adjudicated in Leberte v. City of Birmingham (Jefferson Circuit Court, CV-95-2946, April 26, 1995) ("Leberte I"). The trial court denied this motion. Subsequently, the City answered the complaint, raising a defense based on the statute of limitations. Still later, the City filed an amended answer, again asserting that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by "all applicable statutes of limitations."
On July 14, 1998, the City moved for a summary judgment; in its motion, it renewed its argument that the claims of some of the plaintiffs, namely, those of the Lebertes, the Testons, and the Sutherlands, had been adjudicated in Leberte I. On September 17, 1998, the trial court granted in part the City's summary-judgment motion. In this connection, the trial court's order stated, in part:
(Emphasis added.)
The Lebertes, the Testons, and the Sutherlands moved for a "reconsideration" of the partial summary judgment. On October 21, 1998, the court granted their motion. It entered an order vacating the summary judgment in favor of the City, reasoning that "events that take place at separate times are not a single occurrence."
During the trial of the cause, the City renewed its contentions (1) that the claims of all the plaintiffs were barred by the statute of limitations and (2) that the claims of the Lebertes, the Testons, and the Sutherlands were barred by their recovery in Leberte I. The trial court overruled the City's motions for a judgment as a matter of law and submitted the claims to the jury, with the following pertinent instructions:
(Reporter's Transcript, at 687-88.) The jury returned a verdict in favor of all 12 plaintiffs.
The trial court overruled the City's post-trial motion for a judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial. The City appealed, reiterating its statute-of-limitations and res judicata arguments. More specifically, it contends that all the plaintiffs' claims are barred by two statutes, namely, Ala.Code 1975, § 11-47-23 and § 11-93-2, either separately or in interaction. Those sections provide in pertinent part:
Section 11-47-23:
Section 11-93-2:
(Emphasis added.)
The City also contends that the jury's verdict in favor of two of the plaintiffs, namely, Esther and O.B. Hogeland, was not supported by the evidence. We first address the City's arguments based on the statutes.
It is undisputed that all the plaintiffs in this case suffered flooding to their property that occurred more than six months before the plaintiffs commenced this action. The plaintiffs contend, however, that they also suffered flooding that occurred within that six-month period. No evidence in the record indicates that the plaintiffs gave the City notice of their claims other than through the filing of the complaint initiating this action and the complaint initiating the action in Leberte I, and the plaintiffs do not contend that they did. The plaintiffs concede that § 11-47-23 bars their recovery for instances of flooding that occurred more than six months before they commenced this action. Brief of Appellees, at 12. Indeed, the City requested, and received, the following jury instructions:
No party contends that the jury failed to follow these instructions.
The syllogism of the City's argument is as follows: (1) The multiple instances of flooding of which each plaintiff complains constituted but one "occurrence" within the meaning of § 11-93-2; (2) the multiple instances of flooding resulted from a single proximate cause, namely, the City's failure to "design, maintain, and construct adequate and reasonable stormwater drainage and flood control measures for the Community"; (3) the multiple instances of flooding arose out of a single cause of action; (4) each plaintiff's cause of action accrued on the date of the first instance of flooding; (5) § 11-47-23 required the plaintiffs to file a claim with the City within six months of the accrual; (6) no such claims were made; and, therefore, (7) all claims arising out of the City's failure to "design, maintain, and construct adequate and reasonable stormwater drainage and flood control measures for the Community" are forever barred.[1] The plaintiffs argue, however, that each instance of flooding represented a separate occurrence, or, at least, represented a separate, compensable injury giving rise to a new cause of action. The question, therefore, is whether, or under what circumstances, multiple instances of flooding may constitute separate compensable injuries so as to avoid the consequences of the City's syllogism?
The dispositive rule has been often and aptly stated as follows:
Harris v. Town of Tarrant City, 221 Ala. 558, 560, 130 So. 83, 84-85 (1930) (emphasis added).
The application of these rules is illustrated in City of Clanton v. Johnson, 245 Ala. 470, 17 So. 2d 669 (1944). That case involved a bill in equity filed by Johnnie J. Johnson against the City of Clanton ("Clanton"). 245 Ala. at 472, 17 So. 2d  at 671. The bill alleged that Clanton had polluted Walnut Creek, which ran through Johnson's property, by discharging raw sewage into the creek less than one mile above Johnson's property. Id. Johnson sought the abatement of the discharge and recovery for damage that had "accrued within six months of the institution of [the] suit." Id. at 473, 17 So. 2d  at 672 (emphasis added).
Clanton challenged the equity of the bill on the basis of the predecessor of § 11-47-23, that is, Ala.Code 1940, Tit. 37, § 476, which differed from its successor statute in no material respect. In essence, Clanton argued that it had constructed the sewage system of which Johnson complained, approximately four years before *446 Johnson filed a claim with the municipality; that it had been operating it at all relevant times since its construction; and, therefore, that the relief Johnson sought was barred by § 476. Id. at 473, 17 So. 2d  at 671.
This Court disagreed with Clanton's arguments. Quoting the portions of Harris set forth above, it explained the difference between a "permanent nuisance" and an "abatable nuisance." 245 Ala. at 473-74, 17 So. 2d  at 672-73. It stated: "`The mere fact that the city sewers were of permanent construction did not render the nuisance occasioned by them permanent also, for the municipality had the right at any time to abate it.'" Id. at 474, 17 So. 2d  at 669 (quoting Vogt v. Grinnell, 123 Iowa 332, 98 N.W. 782 (1904)). Further, it reasoned: "[I]t is not necessary that the nuisance be created within the period of limitation prescribed by the statute." Id. at 473, 17 So. 2d  at 672 (emphasis added). "It is sufficient, if within that period damages accrue which are separable and recur not from the installation of the sewerage system, but from its method of maintenance or operation which [makes] it an abatable nuisance." Id. (emphasis added). Because "some of the items of damages were separable and accrued within the six-months period of limitation, as for instance injury from vile odors and damage to [Johnson's] milch cows," the Court thus concluded that Johnson was entitled to relief. Id. at 475, 17 So. 2d  at 673.
This present case was not tried on the theory of negligent construction of a storm-water system; if it had been, it would have involved the rule regarding a "permanent" nuisance, namely, the rule that damages must be awarded, not in successive actions, but in solido. Instead, it was submitted to the jury on the theory that the City had negligently operated or maintained the system it had constructed. More specifically, the plaintiffs' evidence tended to show that the City had undertaken to maintain a storm-water drainage system, consisting of ditches and pipes to direct water away from the houses of the neighborhood. The plaintiffs' theory of recovery was that "the City allowed the ditch lines to become clogged with vegetation and debris," Brief of Appellees, at 5, and that it "failed to properly maintain the ditch lines thereby aggravating and contributing to the significant flooding events." Id. at 4.
The record contains ample evidence indicating that the City had systematically neglected or refused to remove obstructions from the ditches and pipes, and that the failure to remove them had contributed to the damage incurred by the plaintiffs within the six months preceding the commencement of this action. For example, the plaintiffs introduced the testimony of Dr. James Walters, an expert in the area of sanitary and environmental engineering. He testified as follows:
(Reporter's Transcript, at 350-53.) (Emphasis added.) Moreover, the record contains testimony indicating that the City allowed vegetation to grow inside the ditches to a height of five feet and testimony indicating that the City had provided no observable maintenance upon the drainage ditches within two years preceeding the trial of the action.
In the language of this Court's discussion in Johnson, the fact that the storm-water drainage system was itself "of permanent construction," did not render the lack of maintenance thereof "permanent also," for the City had the rightindeed, the dutyto "abate" the nuisance created by its failure or refusal to remove obstacles from the pipes and ditches. Moreover, the total damage incurred by the plaintiffs was made up of separable items of damage, each an item of damage to their property attributable to a specific instance of flooding that occurred within six months of the filing of this action. Thus, the claims, as they were tried in this case, were not barred by the syllogism argued by the City. In other words, the plaintiffs' claims presented in this case were not barred by § 11-93-2 or by § 11-47-23 or by a combination of these sections.
In fact, the approach urged by the City would effectively absolve it of all responsibility for maintaining a storm-water system it had assumed the responsibility to provide and would shield a municipality from liability for abatable nuisances in virtual perpetuity. This was not the intent of the Legislature or of this Court.
In that connection, the City relies extensively on Carson v. City of Prichard, 709 So. 2d 1199 (Ala.1998), and Williams v. Board of Water & Sewer Commissioners of the City of Prichard, 763 So. 2d 938 (Ala.1999), particularly as to the claims of the Lebertes, the Testons, and the Sutherlands, that had been prosecuted successfully against the City in Leberte I. The Carson and Williams cases represented successive appeals of the same action against the Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Prichard ("the Board"). Despite a superficial similarity, those cases are not controlling authority for this case.
In Carson, this Court affirmed an award of compensatory damages in favor of, among others, Delfrey Williams, Geraldine Manuel Jackson, and Daisy Lee Robinson. 709 So. 2d  at 1201 n. 1; Williams, 763 So. 2d  at 939. The awards were for property damage and mental anguish the plaintiffs had suffered from multiple instances of "the overflow of raw sewage into their yards and homes after periods of heavy rain." 709 So. 2d  at 1202. Williams was a subsequent action by Williams, Jackson, and Robinson against the Board, in which they sought "additional damages for harm caused them by sewage overflows that occurred on dates after the jury returned its verdict in the original case but before the filing of the complaint [in Williams]." Williams, 763 So. 2d  at 939 (emphasis added). This Court held that the subsequent action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. It did so on the ground that all the instances of flooding of which the plaintiffs complained constituted but a "single occurrence" within the meaning of *448 § 11-93-2; one proximate cause; and, consequently, a single cause of action for purposes of res judicata.
Those cases differ from this one in at least two important respects. First, neither Carson nor Williams involved § 11-47-23. Neither case, therefore, involved a statute-of-limitations issue.
Second, and most significantly, the plaintiffs in Williams failed to present evidence indicating on the part of the Board a culpability that was different in any sense from the culpability involved in Carson. Indeed, the trial court in Carson refused the plaintiffs' request for an injunction requiring the Board to remedy the defects. It refused to do so on the ground that a consent judgment in another action against the Board was in effect. In that regard, this Court stated:
709 So. 2d  at 1207 (emphasis added). In other words, in light of the fact that the trial court in Carson had specifically found that the Board was making a good-faith effort to remedy the sewage problems, the plaintiffs in Williams provided no factual basis to support further actions based on an abatable-nuisance theory. Because of these important distinctions, we disagree with the City's argument that Carson and Williams require a reversal of the judgment entered in this case.
The City contends that the jury's verdict in favor of the Hogelands was not supported by the evidence. We disagree. The Hogelands live across the street from the Sutherlands. Specifically, Esther Hogeland testified as follows:
(Reporter's Transcript, at 444-45.)(Emphasis added.)
Henry Sutherland testified that the City had assumed the maintenance of a storm-water system of ditches and pipes on, or around, his property. He also testified that if the pipes did not exist, then the storm water would "go all over the road there and down around the front of my house." (Reporter's Transcript, at 191.) Ollie Sutherland testified that when the ditches in, or around, her house fill up with debris, the water overflows and goes upon the Hogelands' property. The jury could *449 infer that the flooding on the Hogelands' property results, at least in part, from the City's failure adequately to maintain the ditch system on the Sutherlands' property.[2] Thus, the jury's verdict in favor of the Hogelands is supported by the evidence.
We have considered the City's other challenges to the jury's verdict, and we are unpersuaded by them. We conclude, therefore, that the trial court properly entered a judgment on that verdict. That judgment is, therefore, affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
HOOPER, C.J., and MADDOX, HOUSTON, SEE, LYONS, BROWN, JOHNSTONE, and ENGLAND, JJ., concur.
[1]  It is well established that "the statute of limitations begins to run in favor of the party liable from the time the cause of action accrues, and the cause of action accrues as soon as the party in whose favor it arises is entitled to maintain an action thereon." Payne v. Alabama Cemetery Ass'n, 413 So. 2d 1067, 1072 (Ala.1982) (emphasis added) (citing Garrett v. Raytheon Co., 368 So. 2d 516, 518 (Ala. 1979)). This is so, "even if at that time the full amount of damage may not be apparent." Life Ins. Co. of Georgia v. Smith, 719 So. 2d 797, 802 (Ala.1998) (emphasis added).
[2]  In this connection, there was testimony indicating that the City owned an easement upon the Sutherlands' property for the maintenance of the storm-water system.