Opinion ID: 2805597
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Trespass, Nuisance, and Negligence

Text: “[A]n action for common law trespass to land derives from the ‘general principle of law [that] every person is entitled to the exclusive and peaceful enjoyment of his own land, and to redress if such enjoyment shall be wrongfully interrupted by another.’” Kurpiel v. Hicks, 284 Va. 347, 353, 731 S.E.2d 921, 925 (2012). [T]o recover for trespass to land, a plaintiff must prove an invasion that interfered with the right of exclusive possession of the land, and that was a direct result of some act committed by the defendant. Any physical entry upon the surface of the land constitutes such an invasion, whether the entry is a walking upon it, flooding it with water, casting objects upon it, or otherwise. Id. at 353-54, 731 S.E.2d at 925 (quoting Cooper v. Horn, 248 Va. 417, 423, 448 S.E.2d 403, 406 (1994) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)). “The term ‘nuisance’ includes ‘everything that endangers life or health, or obstructs the reasonable and comfortable use of property.’” National Energy Corp. v. O’Quinn, 223 Va. 83, 85, 286 S.E.2d 181, 182 (1982) (quoting Barnes v. Quarries, Inc., 204 Va. 414, 417, 132 S.E.2d 395, 397 (1963)). “[W]e broadly construe an occupant’s right to the ‘use and enjoyment of land.’” Bowers v. Westvaco Corp., 244 Va. 139, 144, 419 6 S.E.2d 661, 665 (1992) (quoting Foley v. Harris, 223 Va. 20, 28, 286 S.E.2d 186, 190 (1982)). The phrase “use and enjoyment of land” is broad. It comprehends the pleasure, comfort and enjoyment that a person normally derives from the occupancy of land. Freedom from discomfort and annoyance while using land, which inevitably involves an element of personal tastes and sensibilities, is often as important to a person as freedom from physical interruption with use of the land itself. The discomfort and annoyance must, however, be significant and of a kind that would be suffered by a normal person in the community. Id. at 145, 419 S.E.2d at 665 (quoting Foley, 223 Va. at 28, 286 S.E.2d at 190-91 (citations omitted)). “A plaintiff who seeks to establish actionable negligence must plead the existence of a legal duty, violation of that duty, and proximate causation which results in injury.” Delk v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 259 Va. 125, 132, 523 S.E.2d 826, 830 (2000). Applying the foregoing definitions of trespass, nuisance, and negligence in conjunction with the modified common law rule applicable to surface water, we hold that the trial court did not err in sustaining the Cordovanas’ and 1273 WOV’s demurrers as to Collett’s claims for trespass and nuisance. Collett’s second amended consolidated complaint only contains specific factual allegations that (1) the Cordovanas added gravel to their parking lot and graded it and (2) 1273 WOV 7 put mulch on their property and “made other modifications” to the property. Collett had the burden to allege sufficient facts that would support a finding “that in filling in [their] lot[s] the defendant[s] acted wantonly, unnecessarily, or carelessly.” Mason, 189 Va. at 355, 53 S.E.2d at 10. We have held that a property owner may, in the reasonable development of his property, grade it and not be liable for discharging the additional diffused surface water. Miller, 226 Va. at 589, 311 S.E.2d at 112. Because the only facts in this case indicate that the defendants dumped gravel and/or put down mulch, Collett failed to plead any facts from which one could conclude that the defendants acted recklessly or carelessly in modifying their properties. Collett’s reliance on Kurpiel in support of her argument that she asserted valid causes of action is misplaced. In Kurpiel, the amended complaint alleged that the defendants’ acts were “careless, and unnecessary.” Kurpiel, 284 Va. at 356, 731 S.E.2d at 926. Unlike Collett, Kurpiel alleged numerous facts which were sufficient to survive demurrer. Specifically, Kurpiel alleged that the defendants’ actions were careless, and unnecessary because they: (1) stripped their land “of virtually all vegetation, including unauthorized removal of vegetation within the Resource Protection Area, a protected land disturbance zone established by the Chesapeake Bay Preservative Act”; (2) “cleared and/or 8 improperly disturbed these protected areas” on their property; (3) “excessively cleared [their land] in violation of state law and County regulations”; (4) “did extensive regrading of the property”; (5) changed the elevation of the property; (6) “brought in additional fill dirt”; (7) “left the land unvegetated longer than necessary”; (8) demanded the Kurpiels remove plantings along the property border, and then “replaced such plants with insufficient and inadequate vegetative cover”; (9) did not use proper drainage controls; and (10) “failed to control sediment loads and siltation running onto the Kurpiel[s’] property.” Id. (emphasis added). In contrast, Collett’s complaint merely states a legal conclusion that “the manner in which the defendants’ property has been developed, maintained and altered has been unreasonable, careless and reckless”, and “must be viewed as being beyond merely negligent” but fails to state any facts that support her claims. Collett also argues that pursuant to Rule 3:18, she merely had to raise “[a]n allegation of negligence . . . without specifying the particulars of the negligence.” However, because this case applies the modified common law rule applicable to surface water, Collett must allege some negligent action or actions on behalf of the Cordovanas and 1273 WOV. A simple factual recitation that the Cordovanas and 1273 WOV did what the common law allows them to do in maintaining their properties and a bare legal conclusion that they did so negligently is insufficient. Collett’s complaint contains no facts to support 9 a finding of negligence by the Cordovanas or 1273 WOV when they modified their properties as permitted under Virginia’s modified common law rule regarding surface water. Accordingly, we hold that Collett’s complaint failed to state a valid cause of action for trespass, nuisance, and negligence, and the trial court did not err in sustaining the demurrers filed by the Cordovanas and 1273 WOV.