Court Opinion

ID: 9612068
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:04:09.714096+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:37:29.314690
License: Public Domain

HALLEY, Justice ,
(dissenting).
The majority opinion holds that the court did not err in refusing to give to the jury defendant’s requested Instruction No. 4, which is as follows:
“Gentlemen of the Jury you are instructed that if you find from the preponderance of the evidence that the defendant constructed a dyke in 1943 *280above .the water pipe line and if you further find that the injuries complained of were the natural result or might be regarded as obviously consequential, of the erection of such dyke, then and in that event plaintiff is barred from bringing this action and you are instructed to bring in a verdict for the defendant.”
I think the above instruction, should have been given to the jury to enable it to determine whether or not plaintiff’s claim is barred by the statute of limitations. The defendant urged the question of limitations in its demurrer.
' Subdivision 3, section 95, 12 O.S.1951, provides that an action for trespass upon real property must be brought within two years.
We have held in numerous cases that the question of when a cause of action accrues for damages to real property resulting from a public improvement depends upon whether or not the injuries complained of as resulting to land from the erection of a public improvement are the natural and obvious consequence of such public improvement, or the result of negligent maintenance, repair or operation of such public improvement.
If the injuries suffered are the natural and obviously consequential result of the erection of such improvement, then the cause of action arises immediately and the two-year statute above mentioned is applicable.
If the injuries ate not the natural and obvious result of the erection of the'public improvement, the statute of limitations is set in motion when the injury occurs as a*, result of negligent operation, maintenance, or repair of the public improvement.
In Fletcher v. City of Altus, 188 Okl. 342, 108 P.2d 781, ‘the rule is announced in- the second- paragraph of the syllabus as follows-:'
“Whether a cause of action for 'injuries resulting from the erecti'dn' of a permanent public improvement arises upon the completion of- the -improvement depends upon a determination' of the issue of fact as to whether the injuries complained of are. the natural result, or may be regarded as-obviously consequential, of the erection of such permanent improvement, and such issue of fact should be submitted to the jury for determination, as a prerequisite for determining whether or not such action is barred by the statute of limitations.”
More recently we announced in the syllabus in City of Collinsville v. Swisher, 196 Okl. 57, 162 P.2d 324; as follows:
“The statute of limitations is set in motion to an action for dam'ages for such injuries as were the natural and obvious result of the erection of permanent improvements at the time of the completion thereof, but this rule does not apply to such other injuries as subsequently result from the negligent maintenance or operation of such improvements, and the limitation as to the latter is set in motion at the time such injuries occur.”
See also Murduck v. City of Blackwell, 198 Okl. 171, 176 P.2d 1002.
The evidence shows that the pipeline was erected in 1937, but that in 1943, the line washed out and had to be-relaid under the river bed. The erosion which injured plaintiff’s land was claimed to be the result-of the erection of. a dyke on the up-stream side of the pipe line to divert the channel of the river from the south side to enable them to- lay the pipe line under the channel of the. river which was then along the south bank., ■ . ■
• There is evidence that this' obstruction diverted the-channel of the river from'the south' bank in a north or northeast direction where it reached and eroded plaintiff’s land. Some of the witnesses were positive' that the dyke caused the injuries suffered-by plaintiff, ¡ while others"thought it had nothing to do' with, such injuries/ but. that the river'changed its''course often and that in. that case th'e-'channel' naturally followed, the' pipe line in'/'a-'.northeasterly direction toward- plaintiff’s land -because the--'deep ditch’dug for the-p'ipe,.-line"’.was *281filled with loose dirt which the channel of the river naturally followed and washed ■out.
- If. plaintiffs injuries were -the natural and obvious consequential result of the erection of. the dyke in 1943, her cause of action ;arose at that time and the statute of limitations began to run, barring her. from- recovery at the expiration of two years.from-1943. If .the injuries suffered were not the natural and obvious result following defendant’s negligent acts in 1943, her cause of action arose only when the injuries actually occurred. This then became a question for the jury to determine and should have been presented for its consideration by requested Instruction No. 4. I therefore dissent.