Burt Olney Canning Co. v. State, 230 N.Y. 351 (1921)
The statute of limitations for claims against the state arising from occasional flooding caused by a state-owned structure begins to run anew with each successive injury, as these are considered consequential damages from negligence, not a permanent appropriation of land.
Summary
Burt Olney Canning Co. sued the State of New York for damages caused by the flooding of its factory, alleging the state’s aqueduct was insufficiently sized to handle creek waters, causing flooding. The Court of Claims dismissed the claim, citing a statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the limitation period applied to permanent appropriations, not to occasional consequential injuries from negligence. Each flood event triggered a new claim. The Court also addressed the possibility of multiple causes, stating the state could still be liable for its share of damages, and the potential for prescriptive rights which were not adequately proven or found by the trial court.
Facts
In 1840, New York State constructed an aqueduct across Oneida Creek as part of the Erie Canal, approximately two and a half miles from land later occupied by Burt Olney Canning Co.’s factory.
The aqueduct contained a culvert designed for water passage, but its capacity (532 square feet) was insufficient during periods of high water, causing water to back up and flood neighboring lands.
Between the aqueduct and the factory, two bridges and an embankment spanned the creek, but their openings were larger than the culvert in the aqueduct.
On December 15, 1901, an extraordinary flood inundated the claimant’s factory, damaging its contents. The court found that floods of equal severity had occurred only four or five times in the preceding sixty years. Usual spring and autumn floods did not reach the claimant’s lands.
Procedural History
The Burt Olney Canning Co. filed a claim against the State on December 5, 1903, seeking damages for the December 15, 1901 flood.
The Court of Claims ruled that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations (L. 1830, ch. 293; L. 1866, ch. 836).
The Appellate Division affirmed the Court of Claims decision.
The New York Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts’ decisions.
Issue(s)
Whether the one-year statute of limitations for damages resulting from the erection of a dam or permanent appropriation applies to occasional and temporary injuries, such as flooding, caused by a state-owned aqueduct.
Whether the State had acquired a prescriptive right to flood the claimant’s lands.
Whether the State could be held liable for damages when intervening structures contributed to the flooding.
Holding
No, because the acts of 1830 and 1866 pertain to permanent appropriations, while the flooding in this case was occasional and temporary, resulting from negligence. A new claim arises as successive injuries are suffered.
No, because the record did not establish that the flooding occurred under a hostile and continuous claim of right necessary to establish prescription. The trial court did not make the required findings of fact.
Yes, because the State is liable for the share of the damage apportioned to its own structure, even if other structures contributed to the damage. Recovery should not fail even if the division of consequences is uncertain.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the aqueduct was not a dam or an appropriation of land since it was intended for water passage, not impoundment. The state’s failure to adequately size the culvert resulted in consequential injuries from negligence, not a direct appropriation. “The claim of this landowner is not for a direct appropriation, but for consequential injuries, discontinuous and irregular, resulting from the defendant’s negligence”. Each flooding event creates a new claim.
Regarding prescription, the Court emphasized the requirement of hostile and continuous use. The occasional nature of the flooding (four or five times in sixty years) did not meet this standard. Moreover, the trial court failed to make explicit findings on the elements necessary to establish a prescriptive right.
Addressing the issue of apportionment of damages, the Court acknowledged that other structures might have contributed to the flooding. However, the State could still be held liable for the damage attributable to its aqueduct. The court stated, “Even so, the state was liable for the share of the damage to be apportioned to its own structure, if apportionment was possible”. The Court highlighted the flexibility afforded to triers of fact in segregating damages, even if only an approximate calculation is possible. The failure to determine even nominal damages required a new trial for justice to be done.