Title: Pacific Indemnity Company v. Rathje

State: iowa

Issuer: Iowa Supreme Court

Document:

188 N.W.2d 338 (1971) PACIFIC INDEMNITY COMPANY, Assignee of Stanley M. Hotle and Nellie M. Hotle, Appellant, v. Richard RATHJE, d/b/a Rathje Construction Company, Appellee, v. UNITED BUILDING CENTERSANDERSON, INC., Formerly J. F. Anderson Lumber Company, Defendant to Cross-Petition-Appellee. No. 54513. Supreme Court of Iowa. June 17, 1971. *339 Lynch, Dallas, Smith & Harman, by Gerald Lyell Fatka, Cedar Rapids, for appellant and for defendant to cross-petition-appellee. James W. Crawford and Gene V. Kellenberger, Cedar Rapids, for appellee. RAWLINGS, Justice. Action at law by plaintiff-assignee of property owner for damages resulting from excavation of an adjoining tract. Trial to the court resulted in judgment adverse to plaintiff and it appeals. We affirm. Stanley M. and Nellie M. Hotle [Hotles] own and occupy commercially improved land in Marion. United Building Centers Anderson, Inc., successor to J. F. Anderson Lumber Company [Anderson] owns the adjoining property. Richard Rathje, d/b/a Rathje Construction Company [Rathje], was engaged by Anderson to perform excavation work preparatory to construction of a building on its land. That project was undertaken and performed by Rathje sometime in November or December 1964. The excavation went straight down the visible foundation and four feet below footings of Hotles' building. No bracing or shoring was provided by Rathje or Hotles. Cracks which later appeared in the Hotle structure were repaired by R. H. Cooper, a building contractor. Apparently Anderson paid Hotles for the damage to their building; plaintiff, Pacific Indemnity Company [Pacific], insurance carrier for Anderson, then reimbursed its insured; Hotles assigned their cause of action to Pacific; it commenced the instant action against Rathje; he in turn filed cross-petition against third party defendant Anderson. *340 Plaintiff-assignee's petition asserts defendant Rathje was negligent in excavating and this was a proximate cause of resulting damage to the Hotle structure. By his cross-petition Rathje asks indemnity from Anderson in event the former be held liable to Pacific. Defendant offered no evidence. Trial court found plaintiff, (1) failed to establish the boundary line between the Hotle-Anderson properties with any reasonable degree of certainty, or that defendant had excavated on land owned by the former; (2) failed to prove by competent evidence the damage, if any, to Hotles' property resulted from anything other than weight of the building located thereon. Judgment was accordingly entered for defendant. Five errors here asserted by plaintiff are, in essence, material findings of fact by trial court are without support in the record, and the absolute liability for removal of natural support rule was erroneously employed in denying recovery to plaintiff. I. As we have previously stated: II. Our consideration of issues presented requires a prefatory statement of those basic principles of law instantly involved. With regard to excavating of land adjacent to that in its natural condition, 1 Am. Jur.2d, Adjoining Landowners, § 43, provides, to the extent here material: And 1 Am.Jur.2d, Adjoining Landowners, § 44, says in part: Then regarding excavation of land contiguous to an improved tract, 1 Am.Jur.2d, Adjoining Landowners, § 48, states: Accord, Covell v. Sioux City, 224 Iowa 1060, 1062-1065, 277 N.W. 447; Starrett v. Baudler, 181 Iowa 965, 969-971, 165 N.W. 216; Jamison v. Myrtle Lodge, 158 Iowa 264, 267, 139 N.W. 547; Mullan v. Hacker, 187 Md. 261, 49 A.2d 640, 642-643; Law v. Phillips, 136 W.Va. 761, 68 S.E.2d 452, 457-458. See 4 Restatement, Torts, §§ 817, 819; 2 C.J.S. Adjoining Landowners §§ 4-12, 14-18; 1 Am.Jur.2d, Adjoining Landowners, §§ 45-46, 49; Annots. 59 A. L.R. 1252, 50 A.L.R. 499; cf. 2 Restatement, Second, Torts, § 422A; Annots. 87 A.L.R.2d 710, 36 A.L.R.2d 1253, 33 A.L.R. 2d 111. III. In view of the fact there was located on Hotles' land a structure with foundation and footings adjacent or in close proximity to the Anderson boundary line, the question presented is whether plaintiff established by the requisite quantum of proof defendant's alleged negligence in excavating was a proximate cause of damage, if any, resulting to Hotles' building. By its petition plaintiff asserts defendant was negligent in that he, (a) failed to properly brace and shore up the lateral support of Hotles' real estate while excavating; (b) failed to ascertain the boundaries of the property being excavated; (c) excavated over the lot line onto Hotles' property; (d) excavated straight down the footings of the building owned by Hotles, thereby removing the lateral support. IV. This court has repeatedly stated, negligence is conduct which creates an undue risk of harm to others. Adams v. Deur, 173 N.W.2d 100, 113 (Iowa). See Restatement, Second, Torts, §§ 283-284; 2 C.J.S. Adjoining Landowers § 12; 1 Am. Jur.2d, Adjoining Landowners, §§ 50, 67. And actionable negligence must be a proximate cause of any injury or damage done. Andrews v. Struble, 178 N.W.2d 391, 398 (Iowa); see 1 Am.Jur.2d, Adjoining Landowners, § 56. It is also understood the burden was upon plaintiff to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence. Rule 344(f) (5), Ia.R.Civ.P.; Bartels v. Cair-Dem, Incorporated, 255 Iowa 834, 837, 124 N.W.2d 514. V. As heretofore disclosed, plaintiff's first allegation of negligence is to the effect defendant failed to properly brace and shore up the lateral support of Hotles' real estate while the excavating was being done. Trial court found: The record supports this finding. See Starrett v. Baulder, 181 Iowa 965, 970-971, 165 N.W. 216; 2 C.J.S. Adjoining Landowners §§ 14-15; 1 Am.Jur.2d, Adjoining Landowners, § 52. Moreover, Hotle testified he was aware of the work being done by Rathje, so notice to him relative thereto was obviated. Jamison v. Myrtle Lodge, 158 Iowa 264, 272-273, 139 N.W. 547; 2 C.J.S. Adjoining Landowners § 13; 1 Am.Jur.2d, Adjoining Landowners, § 51. VI. We come now to the claim defendant failed to ascertain the boundary lines. For reasons set forth infra that contention lacks substance. In the first place, plaintiff presented no plat, record or expert evidence relative to the boundary line between the Hotle and Anderson properties. The only showing made in this regard was conjectural at best. Even more significantly Mr. Hotle testified, to the best of his knowledge Rathje did not excavate on the Hotle land. Trial court found insufficient proof of negligence was established in support of this second allegation of negligence. That finding is sustained by the record. VII. By the same token plaintiff must be held to have established no actionable negligence by defendant in excavating over the lot line and onto Hotles' property. The record supports trial court in so holding. VIII. Plaintiff last asserts defendant was negligent in excavating straight down the Hotle structure footings, thereby removing lateral support. Unquestionably Rathje did so excavate. On the other hand Mr. Cooper, general contractor, testified to the effect weight of the Hotle building wall pushed the dirt down and cracks appeared because of failure to support the wall. Actually no witness, other than Cooper, expressed any opinion as to the asserted cause of damage to the Hotle structure. On this issue Cooper's testimony alone does not suffice. He was not present while the excavating was in progress and did not see the soil condition during that time. His conclusion was at best speculative, and supported by no other competent and persuasive evidence relative to causation. Trial court found absence of proof sufficient to sustain this final allegation of negligence, and on the record made there is no alternative for us but to agree. See Covell v. Sioux City, 224 Iowa 1060, 1066-1067, 277 N.W. 447. IX. We are persuaded and now hold, trial court's findings of fact have adequate evidentiary support, and despite plaintiff's protestations to the contrary, the judgment entered did not result from application of an erroneous rule of law. Affirmed. All Justices concur.