## Facts

- Two adjoining commercial parcels in Dade County, Florida had natural surface-water drainage generally toward the southwest, from the skating rink property (higher) toward the automobile dealership property (lower).
- The dealership was built on the lower parcel in 1970; the upper parcel then contained a miniature golf course, and neither property had unusual rainwater problems.
- In 1980, Westland constructed a skating rink with a large roof section sloping toward the dealership and discharging runoff through five downspouts near the boundary.
- After the rink was built, the dealership experienced storm flooding that damaged vehicles; the dealership attributed the increased flow to the rink’s roof and drainage configuration.
- After unsuccessful discussions, the dealership constructed an approximately 8-foot-high wall along roughly 900 feet of the property line; the skating center did not object while it was built.
- In 1981, heavy rain caused runoff to collect against the wall, which functioned as a barrier to drainage; water accumulated on the skating rink side, moved under the slab, and caused substantial damage to the rink.
- The skating center and the property owner sued for damages and removal of the wall; the trial court entered partial summary judgment that the lower parcel remained servient for surface water so long as the rink complied with the South Florida Building Code, and a jury awarded over $1 million in damages.

## Issues

1. What rule governs liability between neighboring landowners for interference with surface water: the civil-law (natural flow) rule, the common-enemy rule, or a reasonable-use standard?
2. Whether building-code compliance by an upper landowner conclusively makes the downhill parcel servient to all surface water discharged from the upper parcel.
3. Whether liability must be determined by evaluating the reasonableness of both parties’ alterations affecting drainage.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court adopted the reasonable-use rule for surface-water disputes.
- The Court rejected rigid application of both the civil-law rule and the common-enemy rule in favor of a fact-dependent standard focused on reasonableness under all circumstances.
- The Court disapproved the trial court’s categorical approach treating building-code compliance as determinative of servient-estate status and liability.
- The Court required consideration of both parties’ conduct, including the rink’s drainage design and the dealership’s construction of the wall that impeded drainage.
- The Court quashed the district court’s decision in part and remanded for further proceedings applying the reasonable-use standard.

## Legal Principles

- A landowner may alter, divert, or obstruct surface water only to the extent the interference is reasonable under the circumstances; unreasonable interference causing harm creates liability.
- Reasonableness is determined by a balancing inquiry that may include the gravity of harm, the utility of the conduct, feasible alternatives, the nature of the locality, and foreseeability.
- Natural drainage patterns and building-code compliance are relevant facts but are not conclusive rules allocating servient/dominant status or precluding liability.
- In surface-water conflicts, courts must assess the reasonableness of both upstream and downstream land-use decisions and protective measures.

## Conclusion

Florida applies a reasonable-use test to surface-water disputes, requiring a fact-specific assessment of whether each neighbor’s conduct in changing drainage conditions was reasonable; neither natural-flow servitudes nor self-help defenses, nor building-code compliance alone, controls liability.


Westland Skating Ctr., Inc. v. Gus Machado Buick, Inc., 542 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1989)