Court Opinion

ID: 9530063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:57:03.419191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:59.556237
License: Public Domain

PETERS, P. J.
I concur. I agree with the reasoning and conclusions contained in the main opinion. There can be no *165doubt but that the complaint alleges, and the evidence shows, a good cause of action under the Municipal Liability Act. However, I am also of the opinion that, independent of that act, a good cause of action has been stated and proved. There is no sound legal theory to justify the conclusion that a municipality, without liability, can collect all of the surface waters from a large drainage area, and discharge such waters into a stream with concentrated and destructive force to the damage of lower owners, where the municipality knows or should know that the stream cannot carry the increased burden. Under such circumstances, the municipality is liable under the eminent domain provisions of the Constitution. Such damage cannot be justified either under the police power or under any theory of exercising a riparian right. Although there is language in the majority opinion in the case of Archer v. City of Los Angeles, 19 Cal. (2d) 19 [119 P. (2d) 1], that sustains respondent’s position in the instant case, I do not believe that the Supreme Court intended by that case to overrule well settled principles to the contrary.
A petition for a rehearing was denied September 25, 1942, and respondent's petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied October 22, 1942.