OCR Text |
Show RIGHTS OF LANDOWNERS IN DIFFUSED SURFACE WATERS 5 55 conduct is its meritoriousness from the same viewpoint. * * * If the weight is on the side of him who alters the natural watercourse, then he has acted reasonably and without liability; if the harm to the lower landowner is unreasonably severe, then the economic costs incident to the expulsion of surface waters must be borne by the upper owner whose development caused the damage. If the facts should indicate both parties conducted themselves reason- ably, then courts are bound by our well-settled civil law rule.91 The case was remanded with directions to the trial court to redetermine the issues in conformity with the views expressed in this opinion. The rule of reasonable use, adopted in various States, is discussed immediately below. Rule of Reasonable Use The Restatement of Torts contains a declaration that "Where the invasion of a person's interest in the use and enjoyment of land by another's interference with the flow of surface waters is intentional, the determination of its reasonableness or unreasonableness is ordinarily a question for the trier of fact in each case in accordance with the rules stated in § § 826-831 ."92 In a 1968 case, the Texas Supreme Court referred to this section of the Restatement and. said that "In our opinion this is the sound and better rule in the absence of a statute governing the rights and obligations of the parties, at least with respect to urban property where conditions are constantly changing and it is generally difficult or even impossible to establish how surface water flowed 'when untouched and undirected by the hand of man.' "93 91 Subsequent interpretations of the rules adopted in this case in lower appellate court opinions in California include Burrows v. State, 260 Cal. App. (2d) 29, 66 Cal. Rptr. 868, 870-872 (1968); Western Salt Co. v. Newport Beach, 271 Cal. App. (2d) 397, 76 Cal. Rptr. 322, 326-327 {1969); Sheffet v. County of Los Angeles, 3 Cal. App. (3d) 720, 84 Cal. Rptr. 11,14-18 (1970). '''"Restatement of Torts" § 833, comment b at 271 (1939). "Houston v. Renault, Inc., 431 S.W. (2d) 322, 325 (Tex. 1968). The court's quoted language apparently also referred to another part of this section of the "Restatement of Torts" (§ 833) which it described as follows: "According to the American Law Institute, the liability of one who causes an unintentional but substantial invasion of the land of another by interfering with the flow of surface water depends upon whether his conduct was negligent, reckless or ultrahazardous." (Emphasis added.) And the court held that "The invasion here was unintentional." The court said, "An invasion is intentional within the meaning of these rules when the defendant acts for purpose of causing it or knows that it is resulting or is substantially certain to result from his conduct." (Emphasis added.) Id. For a later case involving an intentional invasion, see Perryton v. Houston, 454 S.W. (2d) 435, 437-438 (Tex. 1970). The court also held that Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 7589a (1954), pertaining to "any person, firm or private corporation," did not apply to municipal corporation, which this case involved. Houston v. Renault, Inc., 431 S.W. (2d) 322, 324 (Tex. 1968). The court indicated that for several years "most controversies over damage caused by |