Court Opinion

ID: 9801257
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 08:47:03.695069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:52:12.080505
License: Public Domain

Pfeifer, J.,
dissenting.
{¶ 44} The majority opinion states that “[t]he purpose of the easement in this case was and remains to drain water from the Wasserman property into Minnow Creek. If the rerouted pipe still accomplishes that purpose, the rerouting does not violate the purpose of the easement.” Majority opinion at ¶ 33. But if the rerouting causes the pipe to carry water less quickly, then the purpose of the easement has been violated.
{¶ 45} It is obvious that when all other factors (pressure, friction, etc.) are the same, but the length of pipe is increased, the water will drain more slowly. In my opinion, the rerouting has diminished the usefulness of the drainage, thereby affecting the purpose of the easement.
{¶ 46} I would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. I dissent.
O’Donnell and O’Neill, JJ., concur in the foregoing opinion.