Iowa Supreme Court Says Homeowners Failed to Prove That City’s Negligent Management of Storm Water Caused Flooding

Overview

The Iowa Supreme Court recently reversed a jury verdict in favor of flooded homeowners, finding that the homeowners had not shown that the City of Ottumwa’s negligent management of storm water caused the flood that devastated their home.

Facts

The plaintiffs purchased their Ottumwa home in 1997. The home was located in a 100-year floodplain, near the golf course and south of a housing addition approved by the City in 1995. When the plaintiffs purchased their home, only a few houses had been constructed in the addition, but at the time of the flood in question, the addition contained 28 homes. Little Cedar Creek ran behind the plaintiffs’ home, approximately 64 feet from their garage. The creek flowed behind the addition, through the golf course, behind plaintiffs’ property, and through a box culvert under a state highway. The shoulder of the highway was about 68 feet from the plaintiffs’ garage.

The plaintiffs alleged that they had only minor trickles of water in their basement until 2004, when they began to experience major problems from the flooding of the creek. They contended that between 2004 and 2010, they had water in their basement at least 100 different times, at least one-foot of water in their basement at least 25 times in 2010 alone, and water to their 7-foot basement ceiling in 2008. The plaintiffs alleged that they asked the City to investigate the flooding, but received little response. The City alleged that it was the Iowa Department of Transportation’s responsibility to clean out the culvert and that straightening out the creek, as the plaintiffs had requested, would only increase flooding.

The plaintiffs’ problems culminated in a devastating flood in August of 2010. On August 10, 2010, water from the creek filled their basement. They called the City, but no one came to investigate. Ten days later, a major rainstorm hit the City, and approximately 25-feet of water covered the highway. The county was declared a federal disaster area, and plaintiffs’ home was completely flooded. The plaintiffs received about $30,000 in disaster assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, but they spent $145,000 to repair their home.

Jury Award

One year later, the plaintiffs filed an action in the Wapello County District Court against the City, alleging that the City negligently managed storm water by approving the addition, by failing to establish storm water detention projects at the addition and the golf course, and by failing to comply with its own storm water management policies. The jury entered a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded them damages of $84,000. The district court denied the City’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the City appealed, and the Iowa Supreme Court retained the appeal.

Iowa Supreme Court Decision

On review, the Court reversed the judgment in the plaintiffs’ favor, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to present substantial evidence to support their contention that the City’s negligence caused their damages. The Court remanded to the district court for an entry of judgment in favor of the City.

At trial, the plaintiffs had presented expert testimony to establish that water from the addition discharged into the creek. The expert’s own report, however, made clear that 6.8 inches of rain within 24 hours—sufficient to constitute a 100-year flood—would have caused water from the creek to flow over the highway bordering the plaintiffs’ property. On cross-examination, the plaintiffs’ expert admitted he had heard reports that as much as 10 inches of rain fell on August 20, 2010. The Court found that the evidence confirmed that a significant, rare rainstorm occurred in the area of the plaintiffs’ home on August 20, 2010. The water was deep enough to allow sheriff’s deputies to use jet skis to rescue flood victims.  The expert’s testimony confirmed that no reasonable efforts by the City to control upstream drainage could have prevented the flooding to the plaintiffs’ property. It would have occurred regardless of any negligence by the City. As such, the plaintiffs failed to establish the required “but-for” causation as the City’s alleged negligence in allowing the addition.

The Court found, however, that the major rainstorm was not, in and of itself, a cause relieving the City of its liability for the plaintiffs’ damages.  There could have been more than one cause of the plaintiffs’ damages. The Court ruled, however, that the plaintiffs failed to present any evidence showing that the City’s negligence was a cause of their damages.

Although the expert offered an opinion regarding drainage control measures the City could have used on the golf course, he did not testify as to any causal connection between the maintenance of the golf course and the plaintiffs’ damages. The Court noted that although expert testimony is not always required to establish causation, it is required where the connection between a defendant’s negligence and the plaintiffs’ harm is not within a layperson’s common knowledge and experience. The Court held that whether the flooding that damaged the plaintiffs’ property was caused by the approval of a residential development and alterations to a golf course was beyond the common understanding of a layperson. As such, the plaintiffs were required to show causation through expert testimony, which they failed to do.

Because there was insufficient evidence to establish causation, the Court ruled that the district court erred in denying the City’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Conclusion

This case raises a number of questions regarding the reason flooding only became an issue for the plaintiffs seven years after they purchased their home. The case did not address rainfall amounts during these years or how much rain fell in 2008 when the plaintiffs’ entire basement was flooded.  Even if the 100-year flood would have resulted in significant damage to the plaintiffs’ home, the question of whether that damage was worse because of the City’s negligent storm water management was not addressed.

This case highlights the necessity of clear expert testimony regarding causation in negligence actions involving facts beyond the common understanding of a layperson. If plaintiffs cannot establish that the defendant’s actions were the “but for” cause of their damages, they cannot prevail, even if the defendant was negligent.