Case Name: Ruth Burke, wife of/and Frank J. McCLOUD v. PARISH OF JEFFERSON
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1980-04-17
Citations: 383 So. 2d 477
Docket Number: No. 10475
Parties: Ruth Burke, wife of/and Frank J. McCLOUD v. PARISH OF JEFFERSON.
Judges: Before SAMUEL, LEMMON, GULOTTA, SCHOTT, CHEHARDY, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 383
Pages: 477–484

Head Matter:
Ruth Burke, wife of/and Frank J. McCLOUD v. PARISH OF JEFFERSON.
No. 10475.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
April 17, 1980.
See also, La.App., 383 So.2d 484.
Gerard M. Dillon, Dillon & Cambre, New Orleans, for defendants-appellees.
Bruce Danner, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.
Before SAMUEL, LEMMON, GULOTTA, SCHOTT, CHEHARDY, JJ.

Opinion:
SCHOTT, Judge.
Plaintiffs have appealed from a dismissal of their suit on an exception of no cause of action filed by defendant. Plaintiffs sued for damages to themselves and their property for the lack of an effective drainage system, and the sole issue is the sufficiency of their pleadings to state a cause of action.
Plaintiffs allege in their petition as follows: They are the owners of their home on real property on the corner of Mississippi Avenue and 27th Street in Jefferson Parish which in the recent past has eroded and sunk as the result of the absence of any effective drainage system in the area. Even with the slightest rainfall water accumulates and remains on the property and the streets. The underground base of Mississippi Avenue has eroded causing a "slanting" toward their property and an aggravation of the condition. Defendant's negligence consists of their failure to provide adequate drainage after undertaking to do so, "to correct a defective drainage system after having notice of same," and to properly inspect for and warn of defects in the system. They allege further;
"X
Petitioners specifically aver that defendant had specific knowledge of the defects complained of and failed to rectify same after a reasonable period of time. Alternatively, the hereinabove described defects are of such a nature that defendant should have had knowledge of same and thereby act accordingly."
In a supplemental and amending petition they allege:
"X(A)
Further, the Parish of Jefferson has approved the adding of new subdivisions since the installation of drainage facilities in the proximity of petitioners' home, having full knowledge, through its agents and employees, that such additions would overtax the drainage system and thereby cause the hereinabove described damage."
In considering an exception of no cause of action every reasonable interpretation must be accorded the language of the petition in favor of maintaining the sufficiency of the petition and affording the litigant an opportunity to present his evidence. Pleadings must be reasonably construed so as to afford litigants their day in court, to arrive at the truth and to avoid a miscarriage of justice. Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc., 310 So.2d 93 (La.1975). The exception must be overruled unless the allegations affirmatively establish that under no facts admissible under the allegations of the petition does plaintiff have a cause of action. Guillory v. Nicklos Oil & Gas Company, 315 So.2d 878 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1975).
Applying these principles to the pleadings in question, particularly the supplementary and amending petition, we have concluded that the exception was improperly maintained. We arrive at this conclusion under Eschete v. City of New Orleans, 258 La. 134, 245 So.2d 383 (1971).
The Eschete case held that plaintiff stated a cause of action in his allegations that the city had deliberately and therefore maliciously authorized new subdivisions, causing flooding during any ordinary heavy rainfall. While plaintiffs' petition does not contain allegations of deliberate and malicious conduct on the part of defendant, the following language of the Eschete case indicates that these particular words need not be used in order to state a cause of action:
". . The plaintiffs are seeking to hold the City, not for failing to provide adequate drainage, but for fault in adding new subdivisions, thus increasing the volume of water in the drainage area. In effect, according to the petition, the power to grant or withhold consent for new subdivisions in the Pines Village drainage area effectively controlled the volume of water being discharged in that area."
Plaintiffs' allegation in paragraph X(A) quoted above seems sufficient to prevent maintenance of the exception of no cause of action.
Furthermore, plaintiffs' original petition states a cause of action when it is construed liberally in their favor. The allegations can be read to mean that there was a specific defect in the particular parts of the system serving the corner where their property was located, the parish government had actual or constructive knowledge of the defect, and it failed to correct it. This seems to bring the case within the ambit of Falgout v. St. Charles Sewerage Dist. No. 3, 351 So.2d 206 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1977) (where the District was held liable for damages resulting from a defective sewerage system and where the District had prior knowledge of the defect); Burns v. Dominigue, 354 So.3d 763 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1978) (where the State Department of Transportation was held liable for an accident caused in part by a stop sign's being obscured and the Department had constructive notice of this condition).
Plaintiffs' original petition was not leveled against the overall inadequacy of the drainage system but rather a particular defect near their property which the Parish failed to remedy despite notice on its part.
While it may be highly questionable that plaintiffs can ever prevail on the merits of this case, and while it may be possible for defendants to secure a pre-trial dismissal of plaintiffs' case by the use of some other procedural device, such as motion for summary judgment, we are dealing only with the exception of no cause of action and have concluded that it was improperly maintained.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is reversed and set aside, and there is judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant, overruling its exception of no cause of action. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings. The costs of this appeal are taxed against defendant.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
LEMMON and GULOTTA, JJ., concur and assign reasons.
CHEHARDY, J., dissents and assigns reasons.