Westland Skating Center, Inc. v. Gus MacHado Buick, Inc.
542 So. 2d 959, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 143, 1989 Fla. LEXIS 274 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a landowner improves their property and alters the natural flow of surface water, causing harm to an adjacent property, the dispute is governed by the "reasonable use" rule, which holds a landowner liable only when their harmful interference with the surface water is unreasonable.
Facts:
- Westland Skating Center, Inc. (Westland) operated on a higher-elevation property adjacent to a lower-elevation auto dealership, Gus Machado Buick, Inc. (Machado).
- The natural drainage of surface water flowed from Westland's property onto Machado's.
- In 1980, Westland constructed a large skating rink with a roof that concentrated and channeled rainwater runoff onto Machado's property.
- The increased runoff caused significant flooding on Machado's lot, damaging several cars.
- In response, Machado's predecessor constructed an eight-foot-high, 900-foot-long wall along the property line to block the water.
- Subsequently, during a heavy rainstorm in 1981, the wall acted as a dam, causing the runoff to back up and severely flood Westland's skating rink.
- A month later, after another flood, Westland's employees sledgehammered holes in Machado's wall to release the backed-up water.
Procedural Posture:
- Westland Skating Center, Inc. sued Gus Machado Buick, Inc.'s predecessor in a Florida trial court, seeking damages and a mandatory injunction to remove the wall.
- Machado's predecessor counterclaimed for damages and an injunction.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment for Westland, ruling that Machado's lower-elevation property must accept all water runoff as long as Westland's building complied with the building code.
- After a trial, the jury was instructed based on the summary judgment and returned a verdict for Westland for over one million dollars.
- Machado, as the appellant, appealed to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal.
- The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded for a new trial.
- Westland, as petitioner, sought and was granted review by the Supreme Court of Florida due to a conflict with another appellate 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 'reasonable use' rule, rather than a strict 'civil law' rule, govern disputes between adjacent landowners over surface water runoff when improvements to one or both properties alter the natural water flow?
Opinions:
Majority - Grimes, J.
Yes. The court formally adopts the reasonable use rule for resolving disputes involving interference with surface waters where landowners have improved their property. Rejecting the rigid and often inequitable outcomes of the traditional 'common enemy' and 'civil law' rules, the court held that a landowner is liable for altering surface water flow only if their interference is unreasonable. The reasonableness of each party's conduct—both the upper landowner's diversion of water and the lower landowner's erection of a barrier—must be evaluated and compared by the fact-finder. Compliance with a building code is relevant evidence of reasonableness but is not, as a matter of law, determinative of the issue.
Analysis:
This decision officially establishes the 'reasonable use' rule as the standard for surface water disputes in Florida, replacing the inconsistent application of older doctrines. The ruling shifts the legal framework from a rigid, property-based analysis to a flexible, tort-based inquiry focused on fairness and balancing the landowners' competing interests. It makes the outcome of such disputes more fact-dependent, requiring a comparative analysis of both parties' actions to determine liability. This approach aligns Florida with the modern trend in water law and ensures that development can proceed without giving developers a license to cause unreasonable harm to their neighbors.
Unlock the full brief for Westland Skating Center, Inc. v. Gus MacHado Buick, Inc.