Noone v. Price
171 W. Va. 185, 298 S.E.2d 218 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An adjacent landowner is strictly liable for damage to both land and the structures on it when their failure to provide lateral support causes the land to subside, provided the land would have subsided even in its natural state without the added weight of the structures.
Facts:
- In 1960, William and Mrs. Noone purchased a house built on the side of a mountain.
- Marion T. Price owned the property directly below the Noones' house.
- Located entirely on Price's property was a stone and concrete retaining wall built sometime between 1912 and 1919 by a previous owner.
- This retaining wall was situated between the two properties and had fallen into disrepair before Price purchased her home in 1955.
- In 1964, the Noones noticed their porch wall was giving way and their living room plaster had cracked, indicating their house was slipping down the hill.
- The Noones complained to Price that the deterioration of her retaining wall was causing the damage, but Price took no action to repair the wall.
Procedural Posture:
- William and Mrs. Noone filed a lawsuit against Marion T. Price in the Circuit Court of Fayette County for damages.
- Price made a motion for summary judgment.
- The circuit court (trial court) granted summary judgment in part for Price, concluding that the Noones had no right to recover for damage to their house, but could potentially recover for damage to their land.
- The Noones (plaintiffs-appellants) appealed the circuit court's partial summary judgment ruling to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an adjacent landowner strictly liable for damages to a neighbor's building caused by the withdrawal of lateral support, if the supported land would have collapsed even in its natural state?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Neely
Yes, an adjacent landowner is strictly liable for damages to a neighbor's building if the land would have subsided even in its natural state. The right to lateral support is an absolute property right for land in its natural condition. While there is no strict duty to support the added weight of structures, if the withdrawal of support is sufficient to cause naturally-situated land to collapse, the responsible party is liable for all resulting damages, including to any buildings on that land. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment because the crucial factual question—whether the Noones' land would have slipped without the weight of their house—was never determined. If the weight of the plaintiffs' house was the cause of the subsidence, then they cannot recover; however, if the land would have subsided anyway due to the wall's disrepair, the defendant is liable for the damage to both the land and the house.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and solidifies West Virginia's adherence to the majority rule regarding lateral support, aligning it with the Restatement (Second) of Torts. It establishes a clear precedent that strict liability for withdrawal of lateral support can extend to damage to buildings, not just the land itself. The key determination for future cases will be a factual one: whether the land would have subsided in its natural state. This ruling shifts the burden in litigation, allowing plaintiffs to recover for structural damage without needing to prove negligence, provided they can satisfy this crucial condition.
