Case Title: ROOPE v ANACONDA COMPANY

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1972-03-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12086 I N THE S U P R E M E C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1972 DENNIS ROOPE, B E T T Y ROOPE, JAMES ROOPE, RICHARD ANDERSEN, and C H E R Y L ANDERSEN, P l a i n t i f f s and Appellants, -vs - T H E ANACONDA C O M P A N Y , A Montana Corporation, Defendant and Respondent. ....................... IVAN H. FREED, DON COLLINS, and C O R A L COLLINS, P l a i n t i f f s and Appellants, -VS- T H E ANACONDA C O M P A N Y , Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f the Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable James D. Freebourn, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants : Neil J. Lynch argued, Butte, Montana. For Respondents : Poore, McKenzie and Roth, Butte, Montana. Robert F. Poore argued, Butte, Montana. Submitted: February 15, 1972 Decided : MAR 8 - 1 g p M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell delivered the Opinion of the Court. A l l p l a i n t i f f s i n two flood damage cases bring t h i s consolidated appeal from summary judgments granted i n favor of a s i n g l e common defendant by the d i s t r i c t court of S i l v e r B o w County, the Hon. James D. Freebourn presiding. In midafternoon of July 28, 1970, an extremely severe r a i n and h a i l storm of lFcloudburs t" proportions h i t the western r e s i d e n t i a l area of Butte, Montana. The principal part of t h i s storm lasted about h a l f an hour and caused a tremendous amount of h a i l and water t o f a l l i n t h e area. This water flowed down- h i l l following the contours of the land. In t h i s process con- sidera b l e water damage and flooding occurred t o the residences, household furnishing and personal e f f e c t s of t h e various plain- t i f f s . Additionally, one of the p l a i n t i f f s claims damages f o r personal i n j u r i e s . A l l of t h e p l a i n t i f f s reside i n t h e Clark S t r e e t gulch area of the "Butte H i l l " . The "Butte H i l l " slopes generally from north t o south and is serrated by numerous gulches and g u l l i e s which a l s o drain from north t o south. These gulches and g u l l i e s , with t h e i r accompanying ridges and slopes, a r e largely covered by r e s i d e n t i a l properties with paved s t r e e t s and a l l e y s . The Clark Street gulch area here involved is about four blocks wide i n an east-west direction and a t l e a s t three or four times a s long in a north-south direction. Clark S t r e e t occupies the bottom of a north-south gully which is bounded by ridges on both t h e e a s t and the west. Drainage t o Clark S t r e e t comes both from t h e north or u p h i l l area of t h e "Butte H i l l r 1 and from t h e east and west ridges sloping downhill t o Clark S t r e e t a t the bottom. A t the north end of the Clark S t r e e t basin is the Anselmo mine of the defendant, The Anaconda Company. A large waste dump is located a t the Anselmo mine. Below the dump there is a L i t t l e League baseball park and bleachers, surrounded by a wooden fence. S t i l l further downhill is located a two-family residence a t 715 West Quartz occupied a t the time of t h e cloudburst by the Richard Anderson and Dennis Roope families, the former a s owners and t h e l a t t e r a s tenants. Members of these two families a r e the p l a i n t i f f s i n one s u i t herein appealed. Their dwelling is located about two blocks downhill t o the south of defendant's Anselmo mine and immediately west of Clark S t r e e t ; it is a l s o a somewhat l e s s e r distance downhill and t o the south from t h e L i t t l e League b a l l park which is located on the slope between the Anselmo mine and these p l a i n t i f f s ' residence. S t i l l further south about four blocks downhill from t h e Andersan-Roope residence, the dwelling of the p l a i n t i f f s i n t h e is second s u i t /located. This dwelling is a l s o a two-family residence occupied by Ivan H. Freed a s owner and the Don Collins family a s tenants. This residence is located,' a t 715 West Galena which is j u s t off Clark Street t o the west. There a r e no r i v e r s , creeks, o r streams i n t h e area in- volved i n t h i s appeal, A l l of the flood waters f e l l from the sky i n a sudden cloudburst of unprecedented proportions. The complaints i n both actions were f i l e d about a month a r e a f t e r the cloudburst a n d / s s e n t i a l l y i d e n t i c a l (except a s t o damages which a r e not germane t o t h i s appeal). Each complaint names a s i n g l e defendant, The Anaconda Company. P l a i n t i f f s seek t o recover f o r damage t o t h e i r residences and personal property from water t h a t flooded i n t o t h e i r dwellings during the cloudburst. P l a i n t i f f s claim negligence on the part of defendant i n "creating an a r t i f i c i a l diversion of water on its property which resulted i n the flooding and damages." Defendant's answer amounted t o a general denial of any negligence on its part coupled with the affirmative defense t h a t the damage was caused by an "Act of God". P r e t r i a l discovery proceedings were carried on by the defendant consisting of written interrogatories t o the p l a i n t i f f s and depositions taken from s i x of the p l a i n t i f f s . Following the f i l i n g of the answers t o these interrogatories and t h e typewritten depositions, defendant moved f o r summary judgment i n both actions. It is i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t the presiding judge was familiar with the area and i n ruling on the motions f o r summary judgment took j u d i c i a l notice "of the genera 1 r e s identia 1 neighborhood here involved and the land contours and t h e properties of Defendant i n t h a t area, including the Anselmo Mine Dump which existed i n its present condition for many years". Defendant's motion f o r summary judgment i n each of the two s u i t s was granted following a consolidated hearing. A l l p l a i n t i f f s now appeal from t h e summary judgments granted. The controlling issue i n t h i s appeal is whether there is any genuine issue of material f a c t precluding summary judgment f o r t h e defendant. The d i s t r i c t court held t h e r e was no issue of material f a c t and t h a t defendant was e n t i t l e d t o judgment a s a matter of law. W e affirm. The g i s t of p l a i n t i f f s ' contention is t h a t defendant, The Anaconda Company, interfered with the natural drainage i n the area and t h i s , combined with an "Act of God" consisting of the cloud- burst, caused p l a i n t i f f s ' flooding and damage for which defendant is legally responsible. Upon o r a l argument p l a i n t i f f s contended the following issues of f a c t e x i s t concerning defendant's i n t e r - ference with n a t u r a l drainage: (1) whether Anaconda's debris plugged the storm sewer drains; (2) whether an Anaconda mine c a r blocked the flowage of water; (3) whether Anaconda's Anselmo mine dump was s o constructed a s t o divert drainage; and (4) whether the L i t t l e League b a l l park, s i t u a t e d on land owned by Anaconda and leased t o the c i t y of Butte, was constructed i n such a manner a s t o approximate a giant "bathtub" impounding the water and suddenly releasing it i n large q u a n t i t i e s when the fence broke, thereby flooding t h e p l a i n t i f f s . Unfortunately for p l a i n t i f f s there is not one scrap of evidence t o subs t a n t i a t e these claims. O n o r a l argument p l a i n t i f f s ' counsel acknowledged t h a t these claims were speculative with no evidentiary basis i n the record. The d i s t r i c t judge s p e c i f i c a l l y concluded: '* * * t h a t the Defendant did not dam up or channel the surface waters here involved but t h a t the same flowed from the heavens a s an Act of God and then followed the general down- grade contours of Defendant's properties which had been established i n the lawful business of mining and off therefrom onto t h e s t r e e t s , a l l e y s and private properties of the resident ia 1 area here involved; and further, having considered the representations of p l a i n t i f f s t h a t Defendant had allegedly diverted t h e n a t u r a l flow of waters by a small mine timber truck which does not and cannot constitute a t r u e dam o r channel f o r water s o a s t o reroute the same t o the lands of plain- t i f f s ; and t h e Court having concluded t h a t t h e waters of t h i s sudden c l o u ~ b u r s t were t h e common enemy of a l l the landowners i n the area and none thereof were l i a b l e t o h i s neighbors f o r the waters which drained and flowed downgrade thereon * * **" There is simply no evidence t o the contrary and accordingly nothing t o t r y before a jury. Rule 56 (c) , M.R.Civ.P., governs summary judgment and requires t h a t such judgment be granted i f : . "* * * the pleadings, depositions, answers t o interrogatories, and admissions on f i l e show t h a t there is no genuine issue a s t o any material f a c t and t h a t the moving party is e n t i t l e d t o a judgment a s a matter of law. * * *" The burden of establishing the absence of any issue of material f a c t is on t h e party seeking summary judgment. Byrne v. Plante, 154 Mont. 6 , 459 P.2d 266,and c i t a t i o n s therein. But where, a s here, the record discloses no genuine issue a s t o any material f a c t , t h e burden is upon the party opposing the motion t o present evidence of a material and s u b s t a n t i a l nature r a i s i n g a genuine issue of f a c t . Flansberg v. Mont. Power Co., 154 Mont. 53, 460 P.2d 263, and a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d therein. There is no factual basis i n t h e record here t o support p l a i n t i f f s ' allegations of negligence on the part of defendant. The record simply shows an unprecedented cloudburst with the resulting waters drained downhill by gravity following t h e topography and contours of t h e land. A n u p h i l l property m e r owes no duty t o h i s downhill neighbor t o prevent the encroachment of such vagrant o r surface waters from h i s property onto h i s neighbor's. Le Munyon v. Gallatin Valley Ry. Co., 60 Mont. 517, 199 P. 915. This Le Munyon r u l e has been reviewed and affirmed from time t o time i n the following Montana cases: Sylvester v. Anaconda C. Min. Co., 73 Mont. 465, 236 P. 1067; O'Hare v. Johnson, 116 Mont. 410, 153 P.2d 888; S t a t e Highway ~omm'n v. Biastoch Meats, Inc., 145 Mont. 261, 400 P.2d 274. Accordingly, defendant is e n t i t l e d t o judgment a s a matter of law. The summary judgments entered by Judge Freebourn i n cause No. 56,789 on June 3 , 1971 and i n cause No. 56,791 on June 4 , 1971, a r e affirmed. Associate Justice Associat-e Justices Hon. Jack Shanstrom, D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r Associate J u s t i c e Castles.