Court Opinion

ID: 9715562
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:08:49.642928+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:35.875100
License: Public Domain

Adams, J.
(dissenting). I do not disagree with the *102cases cited by Judge Gillis. However, none of them takes into account the peculiar situation we have in this case where, as a result of a prior trial judge’s limitation upon third-party actions, two suits are pending: 1) the present case in which the issue is abatement of a public nuisance;1 and 2) an action by the Buchmans against the City of Mason and others which involves the issue of damages to the Buchmans caused by the alleged negligence of the city and others.
An examination of the cases cited by Judge Gillis reveals that they all concern a situation in which the city is the sole purported tort-feasor.
In City of Hannibal v Richards, 82 Mo 330, 336 (1884), the city constructed an embankment which prevented the fall of water from defendant’s lots "which, it is alleged injuriously affected the health of the city. * * * Now, we are asked to hold * * * that the city may create a nuisance upon the lot of an individual and then have it abated at his expense, if he refuse to do it when ordered. * * * The city cannot create a nuisance upon the property of a citizen and compel him to abate it.” (Emphasis added.)
In Weeks v Milwaukee, 10 Wis 242, 269 (1860), the Court said:
"I am also of the opinion that the tax assessed against the plaintiff’s lots to abate a nuisance, which, it appears, was created entirely by the act of the city, in so constructing a street as to cause the water to flow and remain upon the lots, which it would not otherwise have done, is illegal. I cannot recognize the right of a corporation to create a nuisance on the lot of an indi*103vidual. But to create the nuisance, and then tax him to abate it, is a double wrong.” (Emphasis added.)
Patrick v Omaha, 1 Neb (unofficial) 250, 251; 95 NW 477 (1901), was an action to enjoin collecting special assessments. Headnote 4 reads in part:
"[C]ollection of a tax, properly assessed to reimburse the city for the expense of filling such lots to abate a nuisance caused by stagnant water thereon, will not be enjoined when it appears that the owner, after due notice, has failed to so abate such nuisance.”
In that case, a sewer was found to have been properly constructed by the city. The report states (1 Neb [unofficial] 254-255; 95 NW 479):
"The complaint of plaintiffs is that the negligence of the city caused the water to collect on the lots * * * . But the city was not negligent; on the other hand the work was properly done and the plaintiffs were entitled to all damages necessarily caused by a proper grading of the street * * * . The city did not, therefore, cause the nuisance.”
The special assessment was held to be collectible.
In Lasbury v McCague, 56 Neb 220, 226; 76 NW 862, 864 (1898), the city was found to be responsible for creating a nuisance by grading a street so as to cause surface water to back up on the owner’s property and become stagnant. The Court said:
"The doctrine that a municipal corporation which has created a nuisance upon the lot of an individual cannot then assess the costs of abating the same against the property, is sustainable upon the plainest principles of equity, and is fortified by authority.” (Emphasis added.)
Finally, 6 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (3d ed), § 24.62, pp 611-612, reads as follows:
*104"A municipal corporation no more than any individual or private corporation can maintain or cause a nuisance, and the same remedies exist, generally speaking, against a nuisance arising from municipal action as in other cases. * * * Nor can a city cause or create a nuisance on one’s property and then abate it at his expense or require him to abate it.”
In Buckeye Union Fire Ins Co v Michigan, 383 Mich 630, 636; 178 NW2d 476, 480 (1970), the Michigan Supreme Court had occasion to consider the distinction between nuisance and negligence. It was pointed out that there is some confusion as to the nature of a nuisance, particularly one arising out of tortious conduct. The Court concluded:
"Primarily, nuisance is a condition. Liability is not predicated on tortious conduct through action or inaction on the part of those responsible for the condition. Nuisance may result from want of due care (like a hole in a highway), but may still exist as a dangerous, offensive, or hazardous condition even with the best of care. Bowman v Humphrey, 132 Iowa 234; 109 NW 714 (1906).” (Emphasis added.)
The present case is another example of the difficulty the courts have had in distinguishing between negligence and nuisance when tortious conduct results in the creation of a nuisance. . This may not be of much consequence in situations such as those existing in the cases cited by Judge Gillis, where the city was the sole purported tortfeasor, but in the present case the city’s negligence, if any, does not appear to have been the primary cause creating the nuisance. However, the parties responsible for the damage to defendants’ building need not — and, in view of the evidence presented here, cannot — be determined in the case at bar. Whether the city, the contractor, the owners of the adjacent vacant property, or other par*105ties are responsible must be left for determination in the currently pending suit by the Buchmans for damages arising out of the destruction of their building. Such damages would not be limited to the cost of demolition, even though such cost would constitute a portion of the damages suffered by defendants.
In the instant case we are concerned only with the abatement of a public nuisance. No question is raised as to the reasonableness of the costs which were incurred to abate the nuisance.
I would remand to the circuit court for entry of a judgment in favor of the City of Mason. Costs to plaintiff.

 The trial judge in the instant case erroneously attempted to determine the responsibility of the city in creating the nuisance. However, this is an issue which can only be adjudicated properly in the pending action by the Buchmans against the city and others.