Union Trust Co. v. Cuppy

Supreme Court of Kansas · Contracts

ContractsRailroad liabilityWatercoursesNuisanceStatute of limitationsnatural watercourseculvertrailroad embankment

Facts

Plaintiff owned land through which Little creek, a natural watercourse, flowed eastward toward the Neosho River. In 1870, the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company built its railroad across Little creek, filled the natural channel, and installed a culvert only thirty feet wide, although the channel was about one hundred feet wide and floodwaters also predictably included overflow from nearby Owl creek. In high water in 1876 and 1877, water reached the railroad, was diverted to the undersized culvert, backed up, and flooded nearly all of plaintiff's land, damaging his land and crops. In July 1876, the Union Trust Company took possession and management of the railroad property and later maintained the culvert with actual knowledge of its insufficiency.

Issue

Whether the defendants were liable for overflow damage caused by an undersized culvert obstructing a natural watercourse, including water that had flowed from Owl creek into Little creek; whether the claims were barred by limitations; and whether the Union Trust Company could be liable for damages occurring while it managed the railroad despite not constructing the culvert.

Rule

Railroad companies constructing across a natural watercourse must provide openings sufficient to permit passage of all water that may reasonably be expected to flow there, including unusual and extraordinary freshets that a skillful engineer could reasonably anticipate from inspection of the stream and contributing terrain, but not wholly unanticipatable extraordinary conditions. When an obstruction of a natural watercourse causes repeated flooding, the wrong is a continuing nuisance, and the statute of limitations runs separately from each distinct injury. A managing entity that did not construct the obstruction is liable for later damage if, with actual knowledge of the defective condition and likely injury, it continues to maintain the obstruction.

🔒

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 eastern Kansas, Red Prairie Rail built an embankment across Cotton Run, a creek with a broad natural channel near Topeka. Engineers installed a 25-foot opening where longtime residents knew spring floods regularly spread through the full channel, and a heavy but seasonally typical flood later backed water onto Nora Eldridge's upstream hay field.

Is Red Prairie Rail most likely liable for Nora's damage?

Explanation. The majority rule requires a railroad crossing a natural watercourse to provide a waterway sufficient for all water that may reasonably be expected to flow there, including unusual and extraordinary freshets that a skillful engineer could reasonably anticipate from inspection of the stream and surrounding terrain. Liability does not depend on a prior demand by the landowner, and it is not limited to ordinary low-water conditions. (Derived from Union Trust Co. v. Cuppy (n.d.).)