Noone v. Price

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia · 1982 · Property

298 S.E.2d 218 (1982)

Updated July 23, 2026

Propertylateral supportstrict liabilitynegligencenatural condition of landsubsidenceretaining wallsuccessor landowner

Facts

Plaintiffs bought a house on a mountainside in Glen Ferris in 1960, and by 1964 discovered that their front porch wall was giving way and the living room plaster had cracked as the house slipped downhill. Defendant owned the lower adjoining property, on which an old stone-and-concrete retaining wall had been built decades earlier and had fallen into disrepair before she purchased the property in 1955. Plaintiffs claimed the deteriorated retaining wall had supported the slope and that its collapse caused subsidence that damaged their land and house; defendant denied the wall supported the slope or caused the damage. Defendant did not repair the wall after plaintiffs complained, and plaintiffs spent about $6,000 repairing their house.

Issue

Whether the circuit court erred in ruling on summary judgment that plaintiffs could not recover for damage to their house because an adjoining landowner owes lateral support only to land and not to structures. Also, whether a successor owner of land containing an old retaining wall can be liable where the wall's disrepair allegedly caused subsidence.

Rule

An adjacent landowner is strictly liable for withdrawing lateral support from neighboring land only insofar as the neighboring land is in its raw or natural condition. But if withdrawal of support causes subsidence of the land in its natural state, and damage to structures follows from that land subsidence, the injured owner may recover for both the land and the structures. Conversely, if the land would not have subsided but for the added weight of a building or structure, there is no strict-liability recovery absent negligence. When natural support has been replaced by an artificial retaining wall, subsequent owners must maintain that wall only to support the neighboring land in its natural condition, not to support later-added structures.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Asheville, North Carolina, Dana Kim owns an uphill parcel with a small studio on it. On the downhill parcel, Leo Martin owns a lot containing an aging retaining wall built decades before either party bought their land. Geotechnical evidence shows that even without the studio, Dana’s hillside in its natural condition would have slid once the wall failed, and the slide cracked the studio foundation.

If Dana sues Leo for the studio damage on a strict-liability theory, what is the best result?

Explanation. Strict liability for withdrawal of lateral support protects neighboring land in its natural condition. But when the land itself would have subsided in its natural state, the plaintiff may recover not only for the land but also for damage to structures caused by that subsidence. The key is that the natural land would have failed anyway; if so, consequential building damage is recoverable.