Title: Royal Automotive, Inc., et al. v. City of Vestavia Hills, Alabama; and City of Hoover, Alabama
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1061313
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: May 23, 2008

REL: 05/23/2008
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, 2007-2008
_________________________
1061313
_________________________
Royal Automotive, Inc., et al.
v.
City of Vestavia Hills and City of Hoover
_________________________
1071152
_________________________
Trimensions, Inc.
v.
City of Vestavia Hills and City of Hoover
Appeals from Jefferson Circuit Court
(CV-04-5508 and CV-04-5560)
1061313; 1071152
2
LYONS, Justice.
Royal Automotive, Inc., Saturn of Birmingham, Inc.,
Vulcan 
Lincoln-Mercury, 
Inc., 
and 
Trimensions, 
Inc.
(collectively "the businesses"), sued the City of Vestavia
Hills and the City of Hoover in the Jefferson Circuit Court,
alleging trespass, nuisance, and negligent maintenance of a
natural waterway known as Patton Creek.  The businesses'
claims arise from damage caused by the flooding of Patton
Creek in 2002.  Vulcan-Lincoln Mercury also alleges damage
from a flood of Patton Creek that occurred in 2004.  The
businesses appeal from a summary judgment in favor of Vestavia
and Hoover.  We affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural History
Each of the businesses operates or has previously
operated in locations that are within the city limits of
Vestavia and near Patton Creek.  Royal Automotive, Saturn of
Birmingham, 
and 
Vulcan 
Lincoln-Mercury 
are 
automobile
dealerships whose operations are located at the intersection
of U.S. Highway 31, Interstate 65, Columbiana Road, and Tyler
Road.  Trimensions is a collegiate-products manufacturer that
previously operated in the Southpark Shopping Center along
U.S. Highway 31.  Patton Creek flows near the previous
1061313; 1071152
3
location of Trimensions, then behind the Vulcan Lincoln-
Mercury dealership, through the property on which Royal
Automotive and Saturn of Birmingham are located, and then
into Hoover. 
The headwaters of Patton Creek originate on Shades
Mountain and flow southwesterly down the mountain--through
Vestavia, Hoover, and unincorporated areas of Jefferson
County–-before emptying into the Cahaba River.  Specifically,
Patton Creek flows from Vestavia into Hoover, passes under the
Southland 
Drive 
bridge, 
enters 
unincorporated 
Jefferson 
County
for approximately one mile, and then re-enters Hoover near
Hummingbird Lane.  
Vestavia asserts that Patton Creek existed before
Vestavia was incorporated as a municipality and that the area
where the businesses are or were located has served as a
natural flood basin for hundreds of years.  In an affidavit,
Vestavia's hydrology expert, who created an official flood map
of Patton Creek in 2006, states that because the Patton Creek
flood basin is relatively short and wide and the hillsides
abutting the basin are quite steep, storm-water runoff tends
to concentrate quickly and thus flood surrounding areas,
including the areas where the businesses are or were located.
1061313; 1071152
4
The businesses and private citizens have frequently asked
Vestavia to clean and to maintain Patton Creek in order to
prevent the flooding of surrounding areas.  In response to
these requests, Vestavia cleaned and dredged Patton Creek in
1985, 1996, and 2004.  These dredgings included privately
owned portions of Patton Creek, such as the portion of Patton
Creek that traverses the Royal Automotive property. In 1985
Vestavia contracted with a construction company "for clearing
and grubbing, drainage ditch clean-out (approximately 17,000
cubic yards), some limited rock rip rap and grassing" of
Patton Creek for approximately $108,500.  In 1996 Vestavia
paid the same construction company approximately $135,000 for
similar work on Patton Creek.  In 2002 Vestavia also allocated
$142,560 for dredging Patton Creek; this dredging occurred in
the summer of 2004. 
Aside from these three dredging projects, Vestavia
asserts that its only other maintenance of Patton Creek has
been removal of debris caught in ditches and channels of the
creek near city roads.  However, the businesses assert that
Vestavia has also cleaned and inspected blocked culverts of
Patton Creek as often as once or twice a week, performed
storm-water maintenance on portions of Patton Creek when
1061313; 1071152
5
flooding impacted a public road, had a city employee walk
Patton Creek to check for drainage problems and beaver dams,
monitored the aggregate effect of upstream development on
storm-water runoff, and permitted developers to rechannel the
natural course of Patton Creek at the Olde Towne shopping
center.  Vestavia asserts that it had no part in initiating or
directing the channeling of Patton Creek at the Olde Towne
shopping center.  Vestavia acknowledges that developers of the
Olde Towne shopping center enlisted engineering firms to
straighten, widen, and deepen the portion of Patton Creek
flowing through the property on which the center is located.
Since 2000 Hoover asserts that it has cleaned portions of
Patton Creek on approximately four or five occasions in
response to complaints of residents living along the creek.
From about 1985 to 1995 Hoover periodically inspected and
cleaned Patton Creek in the Hummingbird Lane area.  As part of
a 2004 public-works project, Hoover removed silt from two
partially blocked spans of the Southland Drive bridge.  In
late 2004, Hoover also removed an island of silt in Patton
Creek a few hundred feet upstream from the Southland Drive
bridge at Vestavia's request.  The businesses assert that
1061313; 1071152
6
Hoover has also removed or realigned rocks and sediment along
Patton Creek. 
On September 22, 2002, Patton Creek overflowed its banks
and 
damaged 
the 
businesses' 
property, 
particularly 
automobiles
parked on the lots of Royal Automotive, Saturn of Birmingham,
and Vulcan Lincoln-Mercury.  The businesses describe the
rainfall that occurred on September 22, 2002, as significant
and torrential.  According to the businesses' meteorology
expert, the maximum 1-hour rainfall was 2.4 inches, which
translates to a 10-year rain event.  The meteorology expert
also concluded that the maximum 3-hour rainfall was 4.57
inches and that the maximum 6-hour rainfall was 5.31 inches,
both of which translate to 50-year rain events.  The
businesses' meteorology expert testified that rainfall over a
12-hour period on September 22, 2002, translated to a 25-year
rain event. 
On July 26, 2004, as the result of heavy rainfall, Patton
Creek again overflowed its banks and damaged property at
Vulcan 
Lincoln-Mercury.  According to the businesses'
meteorology expert, the maximum 1-hour rainfall was 2.87
inches, which translates to between a 10-year and a 25-year
rain event.  The meteorology expert also concluded that the
1061313; 1071152
A subrogation action by Motors Insurance Company, which
1
insures the inventory of Royal Automotive, Saturn of
Birmingham, and Vulcan Lincoln-Mercury (CV-05-684), was
consolidated with the present case.  However, Motors Insurance
Company did not appeal the summary judgment entered against
it.  
7
maximum 3-hour rain event was 3.58 inches, which translates to
a 10-year rain event.  The businesses' meteorology expert
concluded that over five and a half hours the Patton Creek
drainage basin experienced 3.98 inches of rain. 
The businesses timely filed both their notices of loss
with Vestavia and Hoover concerning the 2002 and 2004 floods
and their complaints seeking recovery from Vestavia and Hoover
for negligent maintenance of Patton Creek, nuisance, and
trespass.   The Jefferson Circuit Court found that Vestavia
1
and Hoover did not have a duty to maintain Patton Creek and
entered a summary judgment in their favor.  The trial court's
order stated that the businesses' negligence claims fail
because Vestavia and Hoover had no duty to maintain the creek;
therefore, 
the 
claims 
of 
nuisance 
and 
trespass 
also
necessarily fail. See Hilliard v. City of Huntsville, 585 So.
2d 889, 893 (Ala. 1991) ("the viability of a negligence action
against a municipality ... determines the success or failure
1061313; 1071152
8
of a nuisance action based upon the same facts," citing § 11-
47-190, Ala. Code 1975). The businesses then appealed. 
II. Standard of Review
"The standard by which this Court will review a
motion for summary judgment is well established:
"'The principles of law applicable to
a motion for summary judgment are well
settled.  To grant such a motion, the trial
court must determine that the evidence does
not create a genuine issue of material fact
and that the movant is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law.  Rule
56(c)(3), Ala. R. Civ. P.  When the movant
makes a prima facie showing that those two
conditions are satisfied, the burden shifts
to the nonmovant to present "substantial
evidence" creating a genuine issue of
material fact.  Bass v. SouthTrust Bank of
Baldwin County, 538 So. 2d 794, 797-98
(Ala. 1989); § 12-21-12(d)[,] Ala. Code
1975.  Evidence is "substantial" if it is
of 
"such 
weight 
and 
quality 
that
fair-minded persons in the exercise of
impartial judgment can reasonably infer the
existence of the fact sought to be proved."
West v. Founders Life Assur. Co. of
Florida, 547 So. 2d 870, 871 (Ala. 1989).
"'In our review of a summary judgment,
we apply the same standard as the trial
court.  Ex parte Lumpkin, 702 So. 2d 462,
465 (Ala. 1997).  Our review is subject to
the caveat that we must review the record
in a light most favorable to the nonmovant
and must resolve all reasonable doubts
against the movant.  Hanners v. Balfour
Guthrie, Inc., 564 So. 2d 412 (Ala.
1990).'"
1061313; 1071152
9
Payton v. Monsanto Co., 801 So. 2d 829, 832-33 (Ala. 2001)
(quoting Ex parte Alfa Mut. Gen. Ins. Co., 742 So. 2d 182, 184
(Ala. 1999)). 
III. Analysis
A.  Contentions of the parties.
The businesses contend that the trial court improperly
entered a summary judgment in favor of Vestavia and Hoover
because, they argue, Vestavia and Hoover have both undertaken
a duty to maintain Patton Creek.  The businesses recognize
that although a municipality in Alabama has no duty to create
or maintain a drainage system, this Court has held that "once
a municipality undertakes to either construct or maintain a
drainage system, a duty of care exists, and a municipality may
be liable for damages to a property owner whose property is
damaged as a result of the negligent construction or
maintenance of a drainage system by the City."  Lott v. City
of Daphne, 539 So. 2d 241, 244 (Ala. 1989).  The businesses
contend 
that 
they 
have presented substantial evidence
indicating that Patton Creek is part of Vestavia's and
Hoover's drainage systems and that Vestavia and Hoover both
undertook maintenance of Patton Creek.  Therefore, the
businesses argue that under Lott Vestavia's and Hoover's
1061313; 1071152
10
maintenance of Patton Creek imposes on them a continuing duty
to maintain Patton Creek.  The businesses further argue that
Vestavia and Hoover breached this duty by failing to regularly
monitor the aggregate effects of upstream storm-water runoff
from new development and by only sporadically dredging and
cleaning Patton Creek. 
The businesses rely heavily on this Court's holding in
Lott to contend that Vestavia and Hoover had a duty to
maintain Patton Creek.  In Lott, a private landowner sued the
City of Daphne alleging that Daphne's negligent maintenance of
a storm-drainage system resulted in damage to his property,
specifically erosion.  539 So. 2d at 242-43. Daphne had
constructed a drainage system that "consist[ed] of a series of
underground 
pipes 
and 
junction 
boxes 
that 
eventually
discharge[d] storm water from the area surrounding Mazie's
Gulch [a natural gully that empties into Mobile Bay] into the
head of Mazie's Gulch."  539 So. 2d at 243.  When a
subdivision was developed within the drainage basin of Mazie's
Gulch, Daphne attempted "to offset the effect of an increased
volume and velocity of water running from the subdivision into
Mazie's Gulch [by] requir[ing] the developers to install an
energy suppressor at the head of Mazie's Gulch."  539 So. 2d
1061313; 1071152
11
at 243.  Mazie's Gulch traversed the landowner's property, and
he alleged that the increased water from the subdivision,
directed to the head of the gulch by Daphne's drainage system,
caused his property to erode.  539 So. 2d at 243.  
Daphne argued that it had never undertaken maintenance of
Mazie's Gulch and that it was therefore not liable for the
erosion of the landowner's property.  539 So. 2d at 243-44.
However, this Court noted that "once a municipality undertakes
to maintain a 'drainage system,' a duty of care attaches in
the maintenance thereof" and held that the landowner presented
sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude that
Daphne had undertaken to construct and/or maintain Mazie's
Gulch as part of its drainage system and therefore had
undertaken the duty to maintain Mazie's Gulch.  539 So. 2d
244-45.  Thus, this Court held that a municipality may have a
duty to maintain a natural waterway that the municipality
incorporates into its drainage system.  
The businesses assert that in Lott this Court held that
a jury could conclude that Daphne undertook a duty to maintain
Mazie's Gulch, in part, because the mayor of Daphne testified
that Daphne "had been using Mazie's Gulch as an important part
of [Daphne's] drainage system for the surrounding area."
1061313; 1071152
12
Lott, 539 So. 2d at 243-44.  The businesses note that
Vestavia's former city engineer similarly testified that
Patton Creek is "one of the main drainage basins in the over-
the-mountain area period--from Shades Mountain to the South"
and that the mayor of Vestavia testified that Patton Creek is
one of the "primary conduits for storm water through
Vestavia."  The businesses also contend that Vestavia has
performed substantially more work on Patton Creek than Daphne
had performed on Mazie's Gulch by spending more than $100,000
to dredge Patton Creek on each of three occasions, by
routinely cleaning and inspecting the creek and its culverts,
and by monitoring the effects on the creek of several upstream
developments. 
The businesses contend that Hoover also has a duty to
maintain Patton Creek because, they say, Hoover's maintenance
and cleaning of portions of Patton Creek has been neither
isolated nor unique.  The businesses assert that they have
presented 
substantial 
evidence 
indicating 
that 
Hoover
regularly inspects and maintains Patton Creek.  The businesses
also assert that there is substantial evidence indicating that
Hoover incorporated Patton Creek into its storm-water drainage
system because, they contend, Hoover installed a storm-water
1061313; 1071152
13
pipe on private property in 2006 to redirect storm water as it
flowed into Patton Creek and did similar work on a tributary
to Patton Creek. 
Vestavia contends that the businesses' claim of negligent
maintenance fails as a matter of law because, it says, it
never undertook the duty to maintain Patton Creek.  Vestavia
contends that its dredging of Patton Creek and cleaning of
culverts to prevent the flooding of public roads is
insufficient maintenance of Patton Creek to impose a
continuing duty to maintain Patton Creek.  Vestavia relies on
Hursey v. City of Mobile, 406 So. 2d 397 (Ala. 1981), and
City of Dothan v. Sego, 646 So. 2d 1363 (Ala. 1994), for the
proposition that a municipality's discretionary and sporadic
maintenance of a drainage ditch is insufficient to impose a
continuing duty to maintain a drainage ditch.  In Hursey, this
Court affirmed a summary judgment in favor of the City of
Mobile by concluding that Mobile did not have a duty to
maintain a drainage ditch.  This Court held:
"The construction of a ditch by the City pursuant to
its easement and maintenance of the existing ditch
were discretionary functions; merely because the
City exercised its discretion and cleared the ditch
two times over a ten-year span of time is not
sufficient to impose a duty upon the City to
carefully maintain the ditch."
1061313; 1071152
14
Hursey, 406 So. 2d at 398.  
In Sego, this Court addressed whether a city had
undertaken the duty to maintain a drainage ditch by cleaning
the ditch 3 times over a 22-year-period, each time at the
request of the owners of land abutting the ditch.  This Court
held:
"Here, as in Hendrix [v. Creel, 292 Ala. 541, 297
So. 2d 364 (1974),] and Hursey, the City has
occasionally cleared a ditch that was naturally
occurring on, or was constructed by the owner of,
the land adjoining the plaintiffs' property.  The
City did not thereby undertake a duty to exercise
due care in maintaining the ditch so that it would
not flood the plaintiffs' property or a duty to
provide for drainage of the plaintiffs' property."
Sego, 646 So. 2d at 1366.
Hoover likewise contends that its maintenance of Patton
Creek is insufficient to impose on it a continuing duty to
maintain Patton Creek.  Hoover first contends that because it
is downstream from the businesses, it never assumed a duty to
maintain any portion of Patton Creek that could adversely
affect their property.  As is the case with Vestavia, Hoover
also contends that the facts of the present case are
consistent with those in the Hursey, Hendrix, and Sego line of
decisions from this Court, holding that discretionary and
1061313; 1071152
15
sporadic maintenance of a drainage system is insufficient to
impose a continuing duty to maintain the system.  Hoover
contends that, like the City of Dothan in Sego, its 2004
public-works project to remove silt from the area upstream
from and under Southland Drive bridge was discretionary.  In
exercising its discretion and removing silt from Patton Creek
in order to assist a neighboring city on one occasion and
sporadically cleaning debris from Patton Creek at the requests
of private citizens, Hoover asserts, it did not undertake a
duty to maintain any portion of Patton Creek. 
The businesses reply that contrary to Vestavia's and
Hoover's assertions, Sego and Hursey are not controlling on
the duty issue because, they say, in both of those cases there
was no evidence indicating that the cities had incorporated
the ditches into their drainage systems.  According to the
businesses, Vestavia channels storm water into Patton Creek
through its constructed drainage system and allowed developers
to rechannel a significant portion of the creek.  The
businesses also assert that Hoover installed a new storm-water
pipe on private property in 2006 to redirect storm water as it
flowed into Patton Creek and did similar work on a tributary
to Patton Creek.  Thus, the businesses contend that the facts
1061313; 1071152
16
of Sego and Hursey are vastly different from those here, where
Vestavia and Hoover channeled storm water into Patton Creek,
incorporated Patton Creek into their drainage systems, spent
hundreds of thousands of dollars dredging Patton Creek,
monitored the effects of development on the creek, and
periodically inspected Patton Creek as part of the cities'
public-works functions.
B. Whether Vestavia or Hoover has assumed a duty by
incorporating Patton Creek into its respective drainage
system. 
Surface water has flowed down adjoining mountainous
terrain into and through Patton Creek for hundreds of years.
There is no evidence indicating that Vestavia or Hoover has
constructed devices to direct water that would not otherwise
naturally flow through or into Patton Creek.  In Lott, this
Court held that "in order for the City to be held liable for
any damages caused by its failure to act, it must also be
shown that the water from the City's drainage system, rather
than the natural drainage of surface water, caused the damage
complained of by the plaintiff." 539 So. 2d at 244 (emphasis
added).  Unlike Lott, in which Daphne purposefully constructed
"a series of underground pipes and junction boxes" to redirect
1061313; 1071152
17
surface water through one area of Mazie's Gulch, there is no
evidence here indicating that Vestavia or Hoover constructed
a drainage system that directed surface water, other than by
natural drainage, into Patton Creek.  We conclude that neither
Vestavia nor Hoover has undertaken a duty to maintain Patton
Creek because the cities have not purposefully directed into
Patton Creek water that would not otherwise naturally flow
through the creek.
C.  Whether Vestavia or Hoover has assumed a duty by
periodic maintenance of Patton Creek.
Three dredgings of Patton Creek by Vestavia over a 23-
year period and the removal of debris in ditches and channels
of the creek to prevent the flooding of public roads do not
constitute undertaking maintenance of the creek.  Such
occasional activity constitutes the sporadic exercise of
discretion to meet exigent circumstances.  See  Sego, 646 So.
2d at 1366;  Hursey, 406 So. 2d at 398.  "Sporadic" is defined
as "occurring occasionally, singly, or in irregular or random
instances."  Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 1207
(11th ed. 2003).  The fact that Vestavia spent more than
$100,000 per dredging on 3 occasions over a 23-year period
does not serve to bring such intermittent activity above the
1061313; 1071152
18
level of sporadic activity.  Further, we decline to hold that
evidence indicating that Vestavia monitored the effects of
storm-water runoff from some residential and commercial
developments is sufficient evidence of the assumption of a
duty to maintain the creek.  
Hoover's occasional cleaning of Patton Creek in response
to requests from residents of adjoining property and one
public-works project to remove silt and debris from the creek
is also insufficient to support a finding that Hoover
undertook maintenance of Patton Creek.
Absent a duty to maintain Patton Creek, Vestavia and
Hoover cannot be held liable for negligent maintenance of the
creek.  See Glass v. Birmingham Southern R.R., 905 So. 2d 789,
794 (Ala. 2004) ("In any negligence case, the plaintiff bears
the burden of proving the existence of a duty owed by the
defendant, a breach of that duty, causation, and damage.").
The trial court correctly found that because the businesses'
negligent-maintenance 
claims 
fail, 
their 
nuisance 
and 
trespass
claims must also fail.  See Hilliard, 585 So. 2d at 893;  City
of Prattville v. Corley, 892 So. 2d 845, 848 (Ala. 2003).
IV. Conclusion
1061313; 1071152
19
Because we conclude that neither Vestavia nor Hoover has
undertaken a duty to maintain Patton Creek, we pretermit
consideration of all other arguments by the businesses,
Vestavia, and Hoover.  We affirm the summary judgment in favor
of Vestavia and Hoover.
1061313 -– AFFIRMED.
1071152 -– AFFIRMED.
Cobb, C.J., and See, Woodall, Stuart, Smith, Bolin,
Parker, and Murdock, JJ., concur.