Roope v. Anaconda Company ( 1972 )

No. 12086
I N THE SUPREME C U T O T E STATE O M N A A
OR F H F OTN
1972
DENNIS ROOPE, BETTY ROOPE, JAMES ROOPE,
RICHARD ANDERSEN, and CHERYL ANDERSEN,
P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s ,
-vs -
THE ANACONDA COMPANY, A Montana Corporation,
Defendant and Respondent.
.......................
IVAN H. FREED, DON COLLINS, and C R L COLLINS,
OA
P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s ,
-VS-
THE ANACONDA COMPANY,
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable James D. Freebourn, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For Appellants :
N e i l J. Lynch argued, B u t t e , Montana.
For Respondents :
Poore, McKenzie and Roth, B u t t e , Montana.
Robert F. Poore argued, B u t t e , Montana.
Submitted: February 15, 1972
Decided :
MAR 8 - 1gp
M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.
A l l p l a i n t i f f s i n two flood damage c a s e s b r i n g t h i s
c o n s o l i d a t e d a p p e a l from summary judgments granted i n favor of
a s i n g l e common defendant by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of S i l v e r Bow
County, t h e Hon. James D. Freebourn p r e s i d i n g .
I n midafternoon o f J u l y 2 8 , 1970, a n extremely s e v e r e
r a i n and h a i l storm of lFcloudburs p r o p o r t i o n s h i t t h e western
t"
r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a o f B u t t e , Montana. The p r i n c i p a l p a r t o f t h i s
storm l a s t e d about h a l f an hour and caused a tremendous amount
o f h a i l and water t o f a l l i n t h e a r e a . This water flowed down-
h i l l following t h e contours of t h e land. I n t h i s process con-
s i d e r a b l e water damage and flooding occurred t o t h e r e s i d e n c e s ,
household f u r n i s h i n g and p e r s o n a l e f f e c t s of t h e v a r i o u s p l a i n -
tiffs. A d d i t i o n a l l y , one of t h e p l a i n t i f f s claims damages f o r
personal i n j u r i e s .
A l l of t h e p l a i n t i f f s r e s i d e i n t h e Clark S t r e e t g u l c h
a r e a of t h e "Butte H i l l " . The "Butte H i l l " s l o p e s g e n e r a l l y
from n o r t h t o s o u t h and i s s e r r a t e d by numerous gulches and
g u l l i e s which a l s o d r a i n from n o r t h t o s o u t h . These gulches and
g u l l i e s , w i t h t h e i r accompanying r i d g e s and s l o p e s , a r e l a r g e l y
covered by r e s i d e n t i a l p r o p e r t i e s w i t h paved s t r e e t s and a l l e y s .
The C l a r k S t r e e t g u l c h a r e a h e r e involved i s about f o u r
blocks wide i n a n east-west d i r e c t i o n and a t l e a s t t h r e e o r f o u r
times a s long i n a north-south d i r e c t i o n . C l a r k S t r e e t occupies
t h e bottom o f a n o r t h - s o u t h g u l l y which i s bounded by r i d g e s on
both t h e e a s t and t h e west. Drainage t o C l a r k S t r e e t comes both
from t h e n o r t h o r u p h i l l a r e a of t h e "Butte H i l l r 1 and from t h e
e a s t and west r i d g e s s l o p i n g downhill t o C l a r k S t r e e t a t t h e
bottom.
A t t h e n o r t h end of t h e C l a r k S t r e e t b a s i n i s t h e Anselmo
mine of t h e defendant, The Anaconda Company. A l a r g e waste dump
i s l o c a t e d a t t h e Anselmo mine. Below t h e dump t h e r e i s a L i t t l e
League b a s e b a l l park and b l e a c h e r s , surrounded by a wooden fence.
S t i l l f u r t h e r downhill i s l o c a t e d a two-family r e s i d e n c e a t 715
West Quartz occupied a t t h e time of t h e c l o u d b u r s t by t h e Richard
Anderson and Dennis Roope f a m i l i e s , t h e former a s owners and t h e
l a t t e r a s tenants. Members of t h e s e two f a m i l i e s a r e t h e p l a i n t i f f s
i n one s u i t h e r e i n appealed. T h e i r dwelling i s l o c a t e d about two
blocks downhill t o t h e s o u t h o f d e f e n d a n t ' s Anselmo mine and
immediately west o f C l a r k S t r e e t ; i t i s a l s o a somewhat l e s s e r
d i s t a n c e downhill and t o t h e s o u t h from t h e L i t t l e League b a l l
park which i s l o c a t e d on t h e s l o p e between t h e Anselmo mine and
these p l a i n t i f f s ' residence.
S t i l l f u r t h e r s o u t h about f o u r blocks downhill from t h e
Andersan-Roope r e s i d e n c e , t h e dwelling o f t h e p l a i n t i f f s i n t h e
is
second s u i t / l o c a t e d . This dwelling i s a l s o a two-family r e s i d e n c e
occupied by Ivan H. Freed a s owner and t h e Don C o l l i n s family a s
tenants. T h i s r e s i d e n c e i s l o c a t e d , ' a t 715 West Galena which i s
j u s t o f f C l a r k S t r e e t t o t h e west.
There a r e no r i v e r s , c r e e k s , o r streams i n t h e a r e a i n -
volved i n t h i s a p p e a l , A l l of t h e f l o o d waters f e l l from t h e sky
i n a sudden c l o u d b u r s t of unprecedented p r o p o r t i o n s .
The complaints i n both a c t i o n s were f i l e d about a month
are
a f t e r t h e c l o u d b u r s t a n d / s s e n t i a l l y i d e n t i c a l (except a s t o
damages which a r e n o t germane t o t h i s a p p e a l ) . Each complaint
names a s i n g l e defendant, The Anaconda Company. P l a i n t i f f s seek
t o recover f o r damage t o t h e i r r e s i d e n c e s and p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y
from water t h a t flooded i n t o t h e i r dwellings d u r i n g t h e c l o u d b u r s t .
P l a i n t i f f s claim negligence on t h e p a r t of defendant i n " c r e a t i n g
a n a r t i f i c i a l d i v e r s i o n of water on i t s p r o p e r t y which r e s u l t e d
i n t h e f l o o d i n g and damages."
Defendant's answer amounted t o a g e n e r a l d e n i a l of any
negligence on i t s p a r t coupled w i t h t h e a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e t h a t
t h e damage was caused by an "Act of God".
P r e t r i a l d i s c o v e r y proceedings were c a r r i e d on by t h e
defendant c o n s i s t i n g of w r i t t e n i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s
and d e p o s i t i o n s taken from s i x of t h e p l a i n t i f f s . Following t h e
f i l i n g o f t h e answers t o t h e s e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s and t h e t y p e w r i t t e n
d e p o s i t i o n s , defendant moved f o r summary judgment i n both a c t i o n s .
It i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h a t t h e p r e s i d i n g judge was f a m i l i a r
w i t h t h e a r e a and i n r u l i n g on t h e motions f o r summary judgment
took j u d i c i a l n o t i c e "of t h e genera 1 r e s i d e n t i a 1 neighborhood
h e r e involved and t h e land contours and t h e p r o p e r t i e s of Defendant
i n t h a t a r e a , i n c l u d i n g t h e Anselmo Mine Dump which e x i s t e d i n
i t s p r e s e n t c o n d i t i o n f o r many years".
Defendant's motion f o r summary judgment i n each of t h e
two s u i t s was g r a n t e d following a c o n s o l i d a t e d h e a r i n g . All
p l a i n t i f f s now a p p e a l from t h e summary judgments g r a n t e d .
The c o n t r o l l i n g i s s u e i n t h i s a p p e a l i s whether t h e r e i s
any genuine i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t precluding summary judgment
f o r t h e defendant. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e l d t h e r e was no i s s u e
o f m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t defendant was e n t i t l e d t o judgment a s
a matter o f law. W affirm.
e
The g i s t of p l a i n t i f f s ' c o n t e n t i o n i s t h a t defendant, The
Anaconda Company, i n t e r f e r e d w i t h t h e n a t u r a l d r a i n a g e i n t h e a r e a
and t h i s , combined w i t h a n "Act of God" c o n s i s t i n g of t h e cloud-
b u r s t , caused p l a i n t i f f s ' flooding and damage f o r which defendant
is l e g a l l y responsible. Upon o r a l argument p l a i n t i f f s contended
t h e following i s s u e s of f a c t e x i s t concerning d e f e n d a n t ' s i n t e r -
f e r e n c e w i t h n a t u r a l drainage: (1) whether Anaconda's d e b r i s
plugged t h e storm sewer d r a i n s ; (2) whether a n Anaconda mine c a r
blocked t h e flowage of water; (3) whether Anaconda's Anselmo mine
dump was s o c o n s t r u c t e d a s t o d i v e r t d r a i n a g e ; and (4) whether
t h e L i t t l e League b a l l park, s i t u a t e d on land owned by Anaconda
and l e a s e d t o t h e c i t y o f B u t t e , was c o n s t r u c t e d i n such a manner
a s t o approximate a g i a n t "bathtub" impounding t h e water and
suddenly r e l e a s i n g i t i n l a r g e q u a n t i t i e s when t h e fence broke,
thereby f l o o d i n g t h e p l a i n t i f f s .
Unfortunately f o r p l a i n t i f f s t h e r e i s n o t one s c r a p of
evidence t o subs t a n t i a t e t h e s e claims. O o r a l argument p l a i n t i f f s '
n
counsel acknowledged t h a t t h e s e claims were s p e c u l a t i v e with no
e v i d e n t i a r y b a s i s i n t h e record. The d i s t r i c t judge s p e c i f i c a l l y
concluded:
'* * * t h a t t h e Defendant d i d n o t dam up o r
channel t h e s u r f a c e waters h e r e involved but
t h a t t h e same flowed from t h e heavens a s an
Act of God and then followed t h e g e n e r a l down-
g r a d e contours of Defendant's p r o p e r t i e s which
had been e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e lawful b u s i n e s s o f
mining and o f f therefrom o n t o t h e s t r e e t s , a l l e y s
and p r i v a t e p r o p e r t i e s of t h e r e s i d e n t i a 1 a r e a
h e r e involved; and f u r t h e r , having considered
t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f p l a i n t i f f s t h a t Defendant
had a l l e g e d l y d i v e r t e d t h e n a t u r a l flow of waters
by a small mine timber t r u c k which does n o t and
cannot c o n s t i t u t e a t r u e dam o r channel f o r water
s o a s t o r e r o u t e t h e same t o t h e lands of p l a i n -
t i f f s ; and t h e Court having concluded t h a t t h e
waters of t h i s sudden c l o u ~ b u r s twere t h e common
enemy of a l l t h e landowners i n t h e a r e a and none
t h e r e o f were l i a b l e t o h i s neighbors f o r t h e
waters which d r a i n e d and flowed downgrade thereon
* * **"
There i s simply no evidence t o t h e c o n t r a r y and a c c o r d i n g l y
nothing t o t r y before a j u r y .
Rule 56 (c) , M.R.Civ.P., governs summary judgment and
r e q u i r e s t h a t such judgment be granted i f : .
"* * * t h e p l e a d i n g s , d e p o s i t i o n s , answers t o
i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , and admissions on f i l e show
t h a t t h e r e i s no genuine i s s u e a s t o any m a t e r i a l
f a c t and t h a t t h e moving p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a
judgment a s a m a t t e r o f law. * * *"
The burden of e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e absence o f any i s s u e of
m a t e r i a l f a c t i s on t h e p a r t y seeking summary judgment. Byrne
v. P l a n t e , 154 Mont. 6 , 459 P.2d 266,and c i t a t i o n s t h e r e i n . But
where, a s h e r e , t h e r e c o r d d i s c l o s e s no genuine i s s u e a s t o any
m a t e r i a l f a c t , t h e burden i s upon t h e p a r t y opposing t h e motion
t o p r e s e n t evidence of a m a t e r i a l and s u b s t a n t i a l n a t u r e r a i s i n g
a genuine i s s u e of f a c t . Flansberg v. Mont. Power Co., 154 Mont.
53, 460 P.2d 263, and a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d t h e r e i n .
There i s no f a c t u a l b a s i s i n t h e record h e r e t o s u p p o r t
plaintiffs ' a l l e g a t i o n s of negligence on t h e p a r t of defendant.
The record simply shows an unprecedented c l o u d b u r s t w i t h t h e
r e s u l t i n g waters d r a i n e d downhill by g r a v i t y following t h e
topography and contours o f t h e land. An u p h i l l p r o p e r t y m e r
owes no duty t o h i s downhill neighbor t o prevent t h e encroachment
of such vagrant o r s u r f a c e waters from h i s p r o p e r t y onto h i s
neighbor's. Le Munyon v. G a l l a t i n Valley Ry. Co., 60 Mont. 517,
199 P. 915. This Le Munyon r u l e has been reviewed and a f f i r m e d
from time t o time i n t h e following Montana c a s e s : S y l v e s t e r v.
Anaconda C . Min. Co., 73 Mont. 465, 236 P. 1067; O'Hare v. Johnson,
116 Mont. 410, 153 P.2d 888; S t a t e Highway ~omm'n v. B i a s t o c h
Meats, I n c . , 145 Mont. 261, 400 P.2d 274. Accordingly, defendant
i s e n t i t l e d t o judgment a s a m a t t e r of law.
The summary judgments e n t e r e d by Judge Freebourn i n
cause No. 56,789 on June 3 , 1971 and i n cause No. 56,791 on
June 4 , 1971, a r e a f f i r m e d .
Associate J u s t i c e
Associat-e J u s t i c e s
Hon. Jack Shanstrom, D i s t r i c t
Judge, s i t t i n g f o r A s s o c i a t e
J u s t i c e Castles.