## Facts

- The City of Cape Girardeau improved East Rodney Drive in a hilly residential area by widening it and constructing a concrete street with curbs.
- The curbs and street surface caused runoff that previously dispersed or was absorbed to be collected in the street and directed to catch basins near an intersection.
- The City discharged the collected water through an approximately eighteen-inch pipe onto neighboring private property (owned by Dorothy Rickard), where it was carried by a ditch and then flowed onto Earl and Wilma Spain’s property.
- After the improvements, water was discharged in a concentrated flow during rains, causing recurring flooding and damage to the Spains’ real property.
- The Spains purchased their property after the City’s street and drainage improvements were completed.
- The Spains sued the City and Rickard for damage to their real property, alleging the drainage arrangement constituted a nuisance.
- A jury returned a verdict of $2,500 against the City, and judgment was entered accordingly.

## Issues

1. Whether purchasers who acquire property after a drainage improvement is constructed may sue a municipality for a continuing nuisance that repeatedly damages the property.
2. Whether a municipality is liable in nuisance when its street and drainage system collects surface water from a large area and discharges it onto private land in concentrated, damaging quantities.
3. Whether the evidence and jury instructions sufficiently supported submission of nuisance and the resulting damages award.

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for the Spains.
- The court held the Spains could maintain a nuisance action despite acquiring the property after construction because the condition caused recurring, continuing injury.
- The court held the City could be liable where it artificially collected and cast surface water onto private property in concentrated and destructive quantities.
- The court rejected challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and found the nuisance theory was properly submitted to the jury.

## Legal Principles

- A municipality is not liable merely because surface water runs off streets; liability may arise when the municipality affirmatively collects surface water and discharges it onto private land in a concentrated flow that causes damage.
- A drainage arrangement that repeatedly causes harmful discharges during rainfall can constitute a continuing nuisance.
- In a continuing nuisance, the current property owner may recover for injuries occurring during their ownership even if the condition was created, and earlier damage occurred, before their purchase.
- Damages for injury to real property in nuisance may be supported by evidence of diminished market value attributable to the continuing condition.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a nuisance verdict against the City because its street and drainage construction concentrated surface water and repeatedly discharged it onto private property, and it held that successor owners may sue for ongoing injuries caused by a continuing nuisance.


Spain v. City of Cape Girardeau, 484 S.W.2d 498 (Mo. Ct. App. 1972)