Facts
- Jasper and Mary Rizzo bought a home in Alexandria, Louisiana, next to a vacant lot owned by Heath Nichols.
- The land around the Rizzos’ home sloped toward Nichols’s vacant lot. After rain, runoff would flow over the Rizzos’ property and collect in the low portion of the vacant lot, and then drain away; the Rizzos did not experience flooding before Nichols began building.
- Nichols started constructing a duplex on the vacant lot. During construction, he raised the level of his lot with fill and changed the area’s natural drainage pattern.
- After Nichols raised his lot, water began collecting on the Rizzos’ property instead of draining onto the neighboring lot, causing standing water and repeated flooding in the rear of their yard.
- The standing water damaged the Rizzos’ shed.
- Mr. Rizzo spoke with Nichols multiple times about the drainage problem. Nichols said he would look into it and made some preliminary contacts (such as calling plumbers), but he did not take effective steps to correct the drainage.
- To address the persistent flooding, the Rizzos installed a catch basin on their property.
- The Rizzos sued Nichols for damages they claimed were caused by Nichols’s construction altering the natural flow of surface water.
- After a bench trial, the trial court found Nichols’s construction caused the drainage problems and awarded the Rizzos both special damages (including the catch basin and shed-related costs) and general damages for inconvenience and mental anguish.
- Nichols appealed.
Issues
- Did the trial court commit manifest error in finding that Nichols’s construction, including raising his lot, altered natural drainage and was a cause-in-fact of the flooding and property damage on the Rizzos’ land?
- Did the trial court commit manifest error in finding Nichols had notice of the drainage problem and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent or remedy the harm?
- Did the trial court abuse its discretion in awarding special damages for mitigation/repairs and general damages for inconvenience and mental anguish?
Decision
- The court of appeal affirmed the judgment in favor of the Rizzos.
- The court held the record supported the trial court’s finding that Nichols’s construction disrupted the prior drainage pattern and caused water to accumulate on the Rizzos’ property.
- The court also upheld the finding that Nichols was told about the problem during construction and did not take adequate corrective action.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in the amounts awarded for special damages (including the catch basin and shed damage) or for general damages for inconvenience and mental anguish.
Legal Principles
- An owner may be liable when construction on his property changes natural surface-water drainage and causes damage to a neighboring property.
- Cause-in-fact and fault findings in drainage and flooding disputes are factual determinations reviewed on appeal under the manifest error/clearly wrong standard.
- A defendant’s actual or constructive notice of a drainage problem, combined with inaction, can support a finding of fault when the changed conditions continue to damage a neighbor.
- Mitigation expenses reasonably incurred to address flooding caused by altered drainage (such as installing drainage structures) may be recoverable as special damages when supported by the evidence.
- Awards for inconvenience and mental anguish resulting from repeated flooding and interference with use and enjoyment of property are permissible; the amount is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Conclusion
In Rizzo v. Nichols, the Louisiana Third Circuit affirmed a trial court’s finding that Nichols’s duplex construction raised his lot and changed natural drainage so that runoff pooled on the Rizzos’ property, causing repeated flooding and shed damage; because Nichols had notice and failed to fix the problem, the appellate court left in place both the special damages for repairs/mitigation and the general damages for the Rizzos’ inconvenience and mental anguish.