Court Opinion

ID: 9577779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:38:02.352736+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:21:15.882294
License: Public Domain

HUNSTEIN, Presiding Justice,
dissenting.
The plaintiff homeowners’ nuisance claim against Defendant Norfolk Southern Corporation is not barred by the statute of *420limitations. As the majority correctly states, the classification of an alleged nuisance as permanent or continuing in nature directly controls the manner in which the applicable four-year statute of limitations is applied. However, the majority incorrectly classifies the intermittent flooding on the homeowners’ property that allegedly was caused by the presence of the Defendant’s drainage pipe as a permanent nuisance. In reaching this conclusion, the majority asserts that to the extent the homeowners complain that the mere presence of the culvert and pipe creates a nuisance, the nuisance claim is permanent, but to the extent that they claim the drainage pipe was not properly maintained, their nuisance claim is continuing in nature. Thus, the majority reasons that the only claims by the homeowners that are not barred by the statute of limitations are those alleging that Norfolk did not keep the pipe in good working order. However, there are certainly instances in which the creation of a permanent object that causes harm or damages to others can be considered a continuing nuisance. For example, in facts similar to the ones presented here, this Court in Cox v. Cambridge Square Towne Houses, 239 Ga. 127 (236 SE2d 73) (1997) held that a storm sewer constituted a continuing nuisance because it caused damage to the plaintiffs property every time it rained and would continue to do so.7 Id. at 128. This Court held that even though the storm drain was built more than four years prior to the plaintiffs complaint, the plaintiff still had the right to sue for all damages that occurred in the last four years. Id.
Contrary to the majority’s contention, whether a nuisance is continuing or permanent is not dependent on whether the plaintiff complains about the “presence” of the drainage pipe or asserts that the pipe is improperly maintained. Rather, this Court has traditionally looked at whether a nuisance is transient and abatable to determine whether an alleged nuisance is continuing or permanent. This Court in Shaheen v. G & C Corporation aptly describes the difference between a permanent and a continuing nuisance:
“Where the original nuisance to land is of a permanent character, so that the damages inflicted thereby are permanent, a recovery not only may, but must, be had for the entire damages, in one action; and such damages accrue from the time the nuisance is created, and from that time the statute of limitations begins to run. In the case of *421nuisances which are transient rather than permanent in their character, the continuance of the injurious acts is considered a new nuisance, for which a fresh action will lie; and although the original cause of action is barred, damages may be recovered for the continuance of the nuisance.”
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) 230 Ga. 646, 648 (198 SE2d 853) (1973). This Court in Shaheen held that a continuing nuisance was established by evidence that the defendant’s grading of its property caused water and dirt to be deposited on the appellant’s property every time it rained. Id. Because the nuisance was classified as continuing in nature, this Court rejected the defendant’s argument that the grading of its property occurred more than four years prior to the filing of the complaint and was thus barred by the statute of limitations. Id. at 647. Numerous other decisions by this Court and the Court of Appeals of Georgia have likewise recognized that a nuisance should be classified as continuing if it is transient and abatable.8
The majority’s reliance on City Council of Augusta v. Lombard is misplaced. In Lombard, this Court stated that a permanent nuisance is one where the destruction or damage is complete upon the completion of the act by which the nuisance is created. City Council of Augusta v. Lombard, 101 Ga. 724, 727 (28 SE 994) (1897). However, “[w] here one creates a nuisance, and permits it to remain, it is treated as a continuing wrong and giving rise, over and over again, to causes of action.” Id. The defendant in Lombard committed a one-time act, the removal of a gate from a canal, more than four years prior to the filing of the suit. Id. at 729. The court held that the suit was not barred by the statute of limitations because
[t]his removal did not per se constitute a nuisance, but became such in certain times of high water by discharging large and unusual quantities of water upon the premises of the plaintiff, thereby injuring him. For injuries so received, the plaintiff may . . . maintain an action, and for each successive inundation a new cause of action may accrue.
*422Id. Thus, in this case, the appellant’s building of the drainage pipe did not constitute the nuisance, as the nuisances were the subsequent floodings allegedly caused by the drainage pipe. As such, each individual flooding constituted an alleged nuisance for which a new cause of action accrues. See id.
The majority cites the Court of Appeals’ decision in City Council of Augusta v. Boyd, 70 Ga. App. 686, 688 (29 SE2d 437) (1944), for the proposition that an alleged nuisance should be considered permanent because the homeowners complain of the presence of the drainpipe. However, the Court of Appeals in Boyd never held that a complaint of the mere presence of an alleged nuisance equates to that nuisance being classified as a permanent nuisance. Rather, the court said “the improper maintenance of the ditch, is not a permanent [nuisance], but rather one which can be abated by the city at any time . . . .” Id. at 688. That the plaintiff in Boyd was complaining about the city’s maintenance of a ditch merely demonstrates that this alleged nuisance, the maintenance of the ditch, could be stopped at any time and thus constitutes a continuing nuisance. It does not necessarily follow that a complaint about the mere presence of an alleged nuisance classified that nuisance as permanent, and the court in Boyd does not hold as much.9
The majority incorrectly classifies the homeowners’ nuisance claim against Defendant Norfolk as part permanent in nature and part continuing in nature. Rather, the entire claim should be classified as continuing in nature. It is clear in this case that the alleged nuisance was transient as the flooding was not constant and only occurred during heavy rain. The evidence here also demonstrates that the alleged nuisance was abatable. The Special Master testified as to proposed processes to alleviate the flooding: the construction of an additional drainpipe on Defendant Norfolk’s property or the widening of the drainpipe already there. Because the nuisance here should have been classified as a continuing nuisance, the only damages against Defendant Norfolk that are barred by the four-year statute of limitations are those that were incurred by flooding that occurred more than four years prior to the filing of the Plaintiffs’ complaint. See Cox, 239 Ga. at 128.
In addition to the homeowners’ claims against Defendant Norfolk not being barred by the statute of limitations, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Defendant Norfolk’s drainage pipe caused the damage to the homeowners’ property. The trial court in *423this case relied on the findings of a Special Master. The Special Master concluded that the homeowners’ residence floods because the 36-inch pipe that ultimately drains the basin is not large enough to empty that basin without creating a backup of storm water. Contrary to the majority’s assertion, the Special Master did not conclude that at the time of the pipe’s installation, the structures complied with the prevailing standards and adequately drained the homeowners’ property. Rather, the Special Master noted that the date the pipe was built is unknown and old designs for the pipe cannot be located, and that the pipe was probably sized to accommodate the flow from the drainage basin as it existed many decades ago.10 The Special Master also explains that the flooding on the property caused by the drainage pipe has existed for years and is not a recent occurrence.
Decided May 4, 2009
RECONSIDERATION DENIED JUNE 1, 2009.
Elizabeth B. Chandler, Jerry L. DeLoach, Laura Sauriol-Gibris, for City of Atlanta.
The Special Master notes that it is likely that additional development surrounding the parties would generate more impervious sources, therefore generating additional water runoff through the drainage pipe and culvert. This assertion certainly creates a question as to whether the surrounding development is a superceding cause to the flooding on the homeowners’ property that the Special Master concludes is a result of Defendant Norfolk’s drainage pipe. However, because the Special Master does not specify how much the surrounding development may have contributed to the water runoff or that it even definitely occurred, this issue of causation is not appropriately decided on a motion for summary judgment. Therefore, I respectfully dissent to Divisions 1 and 2 of the majority’s opinion and would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice Sears joins in this dissent.
*424Weissman, Nowack, Curry & Wilco, William C. Thompson, Laura S. Morris, for Norfolk Southern Corporation.
Gaslowitz Frankel, Craig M. Frankel, Lisa C. Lambert, LeAnne M. Gilbert, for Kleber et al.

 In Cox, this Court recognized the difficulties that courts have had in determining whether a nuisance is permanent or temporary for statute of limitations purposes, and adopted the Restatement approach to classifying continuing nuisances in an effort to alleviate the confusion. 239 Ga. at 128-129.

 See, e.g., City of Columbus v. Myszka, 246 Ga. 571, 572 (272 SE2d 302) (1980) (distinguishing a continuing, abatable nuisance from a permanent nuisance); Brand v. Montega Corp., 233 Ga. 32, 33 (209 SE2d 581) (1974) (“In a surface-water invasion case, the continuing invasions amount to a continuing trespass which is the equivalent of a continuing nuisance.”); City of Gainesville v. Waters, 258 Ga. App. 555, 558 (574 SE2d 638) (2002) (“Where a nuisance is not permanent in its character, but is one which can and should be abated by the person erecting or maintaining it, every continuance of the nuisance is a fresh nuisance for which a fresh action will lie.”); City Council of Augusta v. Boyd, 70 Ga. App. 686, 688 (29 SE2d 437) (1944) (holding that the nuisance is not permanent because it can be abated at any time).

 This Court in Hibbs v. City of Riverdale, a case cited by the majority, recognizes that a party can be held liable for a continuing nuisance whether the party constructs or maintains the nuisance. 267 Ga. 337, 338 (478 SE2d 121) (1996).

 Even if the Special Master were to find that the Defendant’s drainage pipe did not cause flooding when it was created, this does not necessarily preclude the Plaintiffs’ claim. As the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 834 (f) states:
In some [nuisance] cases the physical condition created is not of itself harmful, but becomes so upon the intervention of some other force - the act of another person or force of nature. In these cases the liability of the person whose activity created the physical condition depends upon the determination that his activity was a substantial factor in causing the harm, and that the intervening force was not a superseding