Opinion ID: 2585588
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Permanent or Temporary Damages

Text: Whether the injury was permanent or temporary is the determinative factor in commencing the statute of limitations in damage actions from flooding caused by construction. Isnard v. City of Coffeyville, 260 Kan. 2, 5, 917 P.2d 882 (1996). Where lands are subject to overflow by reason of the erection and maintenance of a permanent structure, the owner who has not been compensated for the appropriation of his or her lands may, if he or she sees fit, maintain an action to recover all damages occasioned to the lands present and prospective, and such cause of action accrues at the time of the appropriation. K.S.A. 60-513(b); see Isnard, 260 Kan. at 5, 10-11. Temporary damages limit recovery for injury that is intermittent and occasional and when the cause of the injury is remediable, removable, or abatable. Damages are awarded on the theory that the cause of the injury may and will be terminated. Temporary damages are defined as damages to real estate which are recoverable from time to time as they occur from injury. Isnard, 260 Kan. at 7. If the damages are temporary and the injury abatable, the general rule is that a new cause of action accrues with each new injury, at least until the injury becomes permanent. In such a case, the 2-year statute of limitations commences with each new temporary injury. Gowing v. McCandless, 219 Kan. 140, 145, 547 P.2d 338 (1976). Permanent damages are awarded on the theory that the cause of an injury is fixed and that the property will always remain subject to the injury. Permanent damages are damages for the entire injury donepast, present, and prospectiveand, generally speaking, those which are practically irremediable. If an injury is permanent in character, all the damages caused thereby, whether past, present, or prospective, must be recovered in a single action. Isnard, 260 Kan. at 7. If a plaintiff suffers permanent damages, the cause of action begins to run at the time of the damage; therefore, the plaintiff must bring his or her tort claim within 2 years after the injury is reasonably ascertainable. Thierer v. Board of County Comm'rs, 212 Kan. 571, 574, 512 P.2d 343 (1973). In judging whether damages are temporary or permanent, three factors are analyzed: (1) the nature of the causative structure, (2) the nature of the damages, and (3) the ability to determine or estimate damages. Isnard, 260 Kan. at 9. In Dougan II, the Court of Appeals addressed the question of when a cause of action for permanent damages from flooding accrues. The flooding in Dougan II resulted from the District's alterations to the network of drainage ditches and waterways between 1942 and 1954. The alterations were made without the knowledge and consent of the State Board of Agriculture, Division of Water Resources' chief engineer. As a result of the alternations, Dougan experienced flooding in 1967 and 1973. After the 1967 flood, Dougan's mother (who owned the land at the time) discussed a possible solution with the District. The District did some dredging work, at its expense. Dougan filed suit in 1974, after the 1973 flooding, seeking a permanent injunction, permanent damages for damage to real estate, and temporary damages for lost crops. The District contended that Dougan's suit was time barred because Dougan had suffered flood damages in 1967 which should have been considered permanent damages. The district court granted the drainage district's motion for summary judgment, determining that Dougan's permanent damages claim accrued in 1967 and that the action was time barred. The Court of Appeals found that because Dougan's future flood damages were not ascertainable in 1967, Dougan's damages as a result of the flooding in 1967 were temporary. The Court of Appeals reasoned: Damages cannot be awarded on mere conjecture or speculation. The plaintiff's land has been flooded twice in the last twenty-four years. Had plaintiff been required to bring his action within two years of the 1967 flooding, his chance of recovery would have been slim. It would have been nearly impossible for plaintiff to have sustained the burden of proof as to permanent damages. Plaintiff's damages were not reasonably capable of judicial ascertainment. Although it was apparent there might be some damage in the future, their nature and extent would have been highly speculative. The flooding of plaintiffs land was contingent upon a number of events occurring at approximately the same time. First, a substantial rain had to occur at a time when Silver Lake did not have sufficient capacity to handle the additional water discharged into it by the drainage district. At the same time, it would be necessary for the Kansas River to be at flood stage. Flood stage on the Kansas River is affected by rains that occur upriver. The Kansas River level is further affected by the water storage capacity available at that time in the numerous reservoirs on the Kansas River tributaries. In 1967, it would have been highly speculative as to whether the necessary combination of events and circumstances would again occur in the proper sequence to flood plaintiff's land, and, if so, at what frequency. 2 Kan. App.2d at 129. The Dougan II court reversed the district court, observing: The flooding in this case is temporary, occasional, and recurrent. There is no indication or allegation that the flooding caused permanent injury to the land itself in 1967. 2 Kan. App.2d at 129. Based on the rationale of Nida v. American Rock Crusher Co., 253 Kan. 230, 855 P.2d 81 (1993), Dougan contends that the act giving rise to the cause of action in this case was the entry of waters onto his property. He argues that the 1993 flood was a new trespass on his land, as each new flood which occurs is a separate tort, distinct in its elements from each earlier flood. The Nida court considered the application of the statute of repose in the context of a trespass claim. In Nida, underground mining had occurred more than 30 years before the landowners brought suit. The suit was brought within 2 years of when the surface of the plaintiff s land sank approximately 10 feet due to the mines. In addressing the application of the statute of repose, the Nida court stated: In a trespass action, the intrusion and the interference and the occurrence of damage are concurrent. The act committed by the defendant may have taken place much earlier, but there was no trespass until the surface was affected. The theory of a negligence action differs in that the wrongful act is the act of the defendant. Once it takes place the negligence has occurred, even though the harmful consequences may not be manifest until later. Although a negligence cause of action usually runs from an act of a defendant, a trespass action need not, and often would not, run from an act of defendant. There is no trespass until the entry is accomplished and the damage occurs (or has begun to occur, as in case of continuing trespass). The trespass counterpart of the negligence `wrongful act' is the entry and the damage. 253 Kan. at 238-39. Regarding his claim of nuisance, Dougan's argument is similar to his trespass argument. For authority Dougan quotes Henderson v. Talbott, 175 Kan. 615, 622, 266 P.2d 273 (1954), where this court stated: `There are cases in which the original act is considered as a continuing act, and daily giving rise to a new cause of action. Where one creates a nuisance, and permits it to remain, so long as it remains it is treated as a continuing wrong, and giving rise, over and over again, to causes of action. But the principle upon which one is charged as a continuing wrongdoer is, that he has a legal right, and is under a legal duty, to terminate the cause of the injury.' In Henderson, a downstream landowner constructed a dam in a natural watercourse which caused an overflow onto the plaintiff's land. The defendant asserted that the statute of limitations barred the plaintiff's action. The Henderson court noted: The question when a cause of action for damages because of overflow of land accrues is one beset with difficulties, on which the authorities are in great conflict and exhibit considerable confusion. This is true even in our own jurisdiction where it must be admitted there is some contrariety in our decisions. Be that as it may we are convinced the rules, established by the great weight of authority and recognized and applied by our better reasoned decisions, governing and decisive of such question as well as the question whether the flooding of land gives rise to a single right or successive rights of action are those succinctly set forth and stated in 56 Am. Jur., Waters, 529 § 45: `... In actions by riparian owners for damages for interference with the flow of a stream, the scope of recovery is usually held to depend on whether the injury is permanent or continuing. The weight of authority is to the effect that whenever the structure or obstruction impeding the flow of water is of a permanent character, and its construction and continuance are necessarily an injury, the damage is considered original, to be recovered in one action, and not continuous in character, and the statute of limitations begins to run from the completion of the obstruction, or at least from the time of the first injury. But when the construction and continuance of the structure are not necessarily injurious, but may or may not be so, the injury to be compensated in a suit is only the damage which has happened; and there may be as many successive recoveries as there are successive injuries. In such cases the statute of limitations begins to run from the happening of the injury complained of.' And in 56 Am. Jur., Waters, 858, 859, § 443: The determination of the question whether the flooding of land gives rise to a single right or successive rights of action depends ordinarily upon whether the injury or the causative condition is permanent or temporary. The rule prevailing in most jurisdictions is that if the injury is permanent, or if the causative structure or condition is of such a character that injury will inevitably result and the amount of the damage can be determined or estimated, a single action may and should be brought for the entire damages, both past and prospective. But if the overflow is merely temporary, occasional, or recurrent, causing no permanent injury to the land, or if the situation involves other elements of uncertainty, such as the possibility or likelihood of the alteration or abatement of the causative conditions, or uncertainty in regard to the future use or improvement of the land, so as to prevent a reasonably accurate estimate of future damages, it is generally held that each [repetition] of the overflow gives rise to a new cause of action for which successive actions may be brought.' 175 Kan. at 620-21. The District now asserts that Dougan's 1982 flood damages are permanent damages because the pattern of flooding is well established and Dougan was capable of ascertaining the permanent damage to his property at that time. Applying the Isnard test regarding whether damages are temporary or permanent, the nature of the causative structure, the nature of the damages, and the ability to determine or estimate damages are the relevant considerations in determining the nature of damages. See Isnard, 260 Kan. at 9. It is true that Dougan was in a better position to estimate his damages in 1982 than he was in 1967 and the nature of the structure, the Rossville Drain, may be a permanent structure. The jury found that Dougan's land was not permanently damaged. The flooding of Dougan's property was temporary, occasional, and recurrent. Dougan's damages were temporary and were not barred by the passage of time. Therefore, a new cause of action accrued. Dougan filed his action within 2 years of the last injury.