Russo Farms, Inc. v. Vineland Board of Education
1996 N.J. LEXIS 609, 144 N.J. 84, 675 A.2d 1077 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For claims against a public entity, a nuisance is a 'continuing tort' if the underlying condition is abatable, allowing claims for injuries that occur within the statutory period. However, for claims against architects and contractors, negligent construction is a single tort, and the ten-year statute of repose begins to run upon the project's substantial completion.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs, Russo Farms, Inc. (Russo), own and operate farmland in Vineland, New Jersey, located across Grant Avenue from a public school site.
- In 1977, the Vineland Board of Education (the Board) decided to construct a school on land at a higher elevation than Russo's farm.
- The Board hired Glenn Kahley as the architect and Art Anderson, Inc. as the general contractor for the project.
- Construction was substantially completed in September 1979, when an Occupancy Permit was issued and classes began. A 'punch list' of minor items was fully completed by February 1981.
- Shortly after the school was built, around 1980-1981, Russo began observing water erosion, gullies, and crop damage on their farmland, which they had not seen before.
- The flooding worsened in the mid-1980s following a dry spell, causing severe damage, including topsoil erosion and crop loss due to water rot.
- Russo alleged the flooding was caused by the school's construction, which improperly directed rainwater runoff onto Grant Avenue, overwhelming the street's inadequate drainage system.
- In August 1987, Thomas Russo sent a letter to the Mayor of Vineland complaining about the ongoing flooding problem.
Procedural Posture:
- Russo filed an official notice of claim with the City and the Board on June 11, 1990.
- On July 18, 1990, Russo filed a complaint in the trial court against the City, the Board, Kahley (architect), and Art Anderson (contractor), alleging negligence, dangerous condition, nuisance, and inverse condemnation.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to all defendants, holding the claims were barred by the six-year statute of limitations, the ten-year statute of repose, and the Tort Claims Act's notice provisions.
- Russo appealed the summary judgment order to the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division reversed, holding that each instance of flooding was a 'continuing tort' accruing a separate cause of action, and that the statute of repose ran from the date of 'full completion' in 1981.
- The defendants (City, Board, Kahley, and Art Anderson) successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of New Jersey for certification to review the Appellate Division's decision.
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 the 'continuing tort' doctrine, which treats each new injury as a separate cause of action, apply to property damage claims for nuisance and dangerous condition against a public entity and to negligence claims against the project's architect and contractor?
Opinions:
Majority - Garibaldi, J.
Yes, as to the public entities' abatable nuisance and dangerous condition, but no, as to the private architect and contractor. A nuisance created by a public entity is a continuing tort if the condition is abatable, meaning each new injury triggers a new limitations period. However, negligent construction by a private architect or contractor is a single tort that accrues when the first injury occurs, and subsequent harm constitutes continuing damages, not new torts. The court reasoned that for a nuisance to be 'continuing,' the defendant must have a continuing duty to abate it, which exists when the source of the nuisance is physically removable or legally abatable. Here, the drainage problem caused by the City of Vineland (the City) and the Board was abatable, so each flood constituted a new tort for which Russo could sue for damages incurred within the Tort Claims Act's limitations period. In contrast, the architect (Kahley) and contractor (Art Anderson) breached their duty of care only once, during construction. Their single wrongful act accrued when the first injury occurred in 1980-1981, and all subsequent flooding was merely consequential damage from that initial breach. Therefore, the six-year statute of limitations barred the claims against them. Furthermore, the court held for the first time that the ten-year statute of repose (N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1.1) begins to run from the date of 'substantial completion' (September 1979), not 'full completion.' Because the suit was filed in 1990, more than ten years after substantial completion, the statute of repose independently barred the claims against the private defendants.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of the continuing tort doctrine in New Jersey by drawing a sharp distinction between public landowners and private contractors. By tying the 'continuing' nature of a nuisance to its 'abatability,' the court provides a functional test for future cases involving ongoing property invasions. The ruling solidifies protections for architects and contractors under the statute of repose by establishing 'substantial completion' as the clear trigger date, preventing their liability from being extended by minor, post-occupancy work. This provides certainty for the construction industry but requires plaintiffs to be vigilant in identifying and suing for construction defects within the ten-year window from when a project is essentially finished and usable.
