Lexplug logoLexplug

City of Gainesville v. Waters

Court of Appeals of Georgia
574 S.E.2d 638, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 3603, 258 Ga.App. 555 (2002)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Where a municipality negligently maintains a drainage system causing repeated flooding of property, it establishes a continuing, abatable nuisance for which the plaintiff may recover special damages for personal harm, such as discomfort and emotional distress, in addition to property damages.


Facts:

  • Patsy Waters and her daughter, Gina Waters, jointly owned a home with a remodeled basement apartment where Gina lived.
  • In 1992, after the City of Gainesville repressurized water lines, the Waterses' property began experiencing water-related problems, including a basement flood.
  • In October 1995, the septic tank backed up into the basement, causing significant damage and emotional distress to Patsy Waters.
  • The Waterses observed water from a neighbor's draining pool enter a city-controlled catch basin across the street and then spew out onto their property.
  • An expert determined that a buried 15-inch pipe, part of the City's drainage system, terminated in the Waterses' yard, causing water to infiltrate their septic drain field and back up into the basement.
  • As a result of the ongoing water issues, the property developed numerous sinkholes from underground soil erosion.
  • The City eventually installed a 'riser' pipe which stopped the basement from flooding, but this fix rendered the basement's plumbing unusable and the apartment uninhabitable.

Procedural Posture:

  • Patsy and Gina Waters sued the City of Gainesville in a Georgia state trial court for damages and injunctive relief, alleging nuisance.
  • The case proceeded to a jury trial.
  • The jury returned a verdict for the Waterses, awarding $122,000 in damages to Patsy Waters and $50,000 in attorney fees to both plaintiffs.
  • The trial court also entered an injunction ordering the City to abate the nuisance.
  • The City moved for a directed verdict and later for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (j.n.o.v.), both of which the trial court denied.
  • The City of Gainesville (appellant) appealed the judgment and the denial of its post-trial motions to the Court of Appeals of Georgia, with the Waterses as appellees.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a municipality's negligent maintenance of a drainage system that causes repeated flooding on a homeowner's property constitute a continuing, abatable nuisance, entitling the homeowner to recover special damages for personal distress in addition to property damages?


Opinions:

Majority - Barnes, J.

Yes. A municipality's negligent maintenance of a drainage system causing repeated flooding is a continuing, abatable nuisance, and a plaintiff may recover special damages for personal harm, such as discomfort and loss of peace of mind, in addition to any property-related damages. The court found that evidence of several flooding incidents on the Waterses' property was sufficient to establish a continuing nuisance, as opposed to a single, permanent one. Under Georgia law, damages for a continuing, abatable nuisance are not limited to the diminution of rental or market value. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover for any special damages, including personal damages for discomfort, annoyance, and loss of peace of mind, with the amount determined by the 'enlightened conscience of the jury.' Because the nuisance was ongoing, the statute of limitations did not bar claims for damages that occurred within four years of the lawsuit being filed, as each continuance of the nuisance creates a fresh cause of action.



Analysis:

This case clarifies the distinction between a permanent and a continuing, abatable nuisance, particularly regarding the scope of available damages. By affirming an award for general damages based on personal distress, the court reinforces that the harm in a continuing nuisance case is not merely economic but also an interference with the owner's right to enjoy their property. This precedent strengthens the ability of property owners to hold municipalities accountable for failing to maintain public infrastructure, allowing for recovery beyond simple property value loss to include compensation for the emotional and personal toll of the ongoing problem. It also solidifies the principle that each instance of harm from a continuing nuisance resets the statute of limitations for that specific instance.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query City of Gainesville v. Waters (2002) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for City of Gainesville v. Waters