Opinion ID: 2384680
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: mhtc

Text: Appellants argue that their negligence and nuisance claims against MHTC were not barred by sovereign immunity or the statute of limitations. [17] However, when private property is damaged by a nuisance operated by an entity having the power of eminent domain, the proper remedy is an action in inverse condemnation. [18] Green Acres Land & Cattle Co. v. State, 766 S.W.2d 649, 651 (Mo.App.1988); Harris v. Missouri Dept. of Conservation, 755 S.W.2d 726, 729 (Mo.App.1988). The fact that the nuisance is alleged to have been caused by the public entity's negligence is immaterial. See Page v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 377 S.W.2d 348, 353-54 (Mo.1964). Because MHTC is empowered to exercise the right of eminent domain, § 227.120, RSMo 1986, the trial court did not err in dropping appellants' nuisance and negligence claims while retaining their inverse condemnation claims.