Opinion ID: 1698436
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether Vestavia or Hoover has assumed a duty by periodic maintenance of Patton Creek.

Text: 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 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).