OREDIA HODGE, APPELLANT,
v.
WALTER G. JUSTUS, ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment for defendants, finding plaintiff failed to prove causation between property damage and defendants' land clearing, while rejecting defendants' argument that upland owners have unlimited rights to collect and dispose of surface water.
An upland landowner does not have the right to collect and dispose of surface water in any manner that substantially increases the quantity flowing onto adjacent land.
[1] An upland landowner may not collect and dispose of surface water in a manner that substantially increases the quantity flowing onto adjacent property.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“an upland landowner has the right to collect surface water and dispose of same in any manner that he selects even though such action substantially increases the quantity of surface water that flows onto adjacent land”
The court expressly rejected this contention advanced by appellees-defendants regarding their rights as upland property owners.
Appellant Hodge's property sustained damages allegedly caused by land clearing and construction activities conducted by appellees Justus and others on…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Water Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
After having thoroughly reviewed the record on appeal, including all of the testimony adduced at trial and all exhibits tendered into evidence, and having heard oral argument presented by counsel of the respective parties, and having carefully studied the briefs submitted to this Court by respective counsel, we affirm the trial court’s order vacating and setting aside the jury verdict and entering a judgment in favor of appellees-defendants. We find, as did the trial court, that appellant-plaintiff failed to establish a causal connection between the damages done to appellant’s property and the land clearing and construction being carried on by appellees on appellees’ property.
We wish to point out that even though the trial court’s judgment is affirmed, we are nevertheless expressly rejecting appellees’ contention that an upland landowner has the right to collect surface water and dispose of same in any manner that he selects even though such action substantially increases the quantity of surface water that flows onto adjacent land, Gwinn v. Andrews, First District Court of Appeal Case, 310 So. 2d 424, Opinion filed April 8, 1975, not yet reported; and New Homes of Pensacola, Inc. v. Mayne, 169 So. 2d 345 (Fla.App. 1st 1964).
The judgment appealed is affirmed.
RAWLS, C. J., McCORD, J., and HARDING, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Westland Skating Ctr., Inc. v. GUS MacHado Buick, Inc., 542 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1989)…s in which the First District Court of Appeal announced principles which appear consistent with the strict civil law rule. Roger Properties, Inc. v. Allen, 314 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cert. denied, 328 So. 2d 842 (Fla.1976); Hodge v. Justus, 312 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); New Homes of Pensacola, Inc. v. Mayne, 169 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964). On the other hand, in Seminole County v. Mertz, the court said: Courts of Florida have applied, in an almost unbroken line of decisions, practically all…
-
GUS MacHado Buick, Inc. v. Westland Skating Ctr., Inc., 523 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…terference with Drainage of Surface Waters, 93 A.L.R.3d 1208 (1979). The rule does not extend, however, to permitting the upper elevation owner to increase the natural flow of the surface water onto the lower elevation owner’s land. Hodge v. Justus, 312 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); New Homes, Inc. v. Mayne, 169 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); F. Maloney, S. Plager, F. Baldwin, Water Law and Administration: The Florida Experience 202 (1968) [hereinafter cited as Maloney & Plager]. As the court in Mayne indi…
Authorities Cited
- NEW Homes OF Pensacola, Inc. v. Mayne, 169 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Gwinn v. Andrews, 310 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)