TT&H Attorney Amanda Hennessey Wins Appeal Before the Pennsylvania Superior Court on a Water Runoff Case 

TT&H Attorney Amanda Hennessey recently represented a homeowner who lived uphill from Plaintiffs’ property.  Plaintiffs moved into their property a few years before the uphill property owner, and immediately experienced issues with water draining from a pipe connected to a sump pump from the uphill property.  These issues were reported to the Township, but no action was taken.

After the uphill homeowner purchased her property, she built an in-ground swimming pool, deck patio, and fence in accordance with an approved stormwater management plan.  She also cleared a patch of shrubs, trees, and brush and installed a shed.  Due to inaccuracies of the uphill homeowner’s land survey, the patch that was cleared was on the Plaintiffs’ property.  The shed, which was subsequently removed, had also been installed on the Plaintiffs’ property.

The Plaintiffs filed claims of negligence, trespass and nuisance against the uphill property owner, arguing that her clearing of the shrubs and trees caused an unnatural amount of flooding on their property.  Plaintiffs engaged a landscaper to prepare a report in support of their claims.  The landscaper stated that there was one underground spring feeding the sump pump.  Opinions were also expressed as to purported deficiencies of the approved storm water pit.

The uphill homeowner filed a Motion to preclude Plaintiffs’ expert because he was not qualified on the topic of storm water management or engineering so as to be able to opine on whether her actions caused an unnatural amount of water to be discharged onto Plaintiffs’ land.  The uphill homeowner also filed a Motion for summary judgment and a supporting brief arguing that Plaintiffs failed to prove a prima facie case for negligence, trespass, or nuisance because they had not produced any evidence that she diverted water from its natural channel by artificial means, or unreasonably or unnecessarily increased the quantity of water or changed the dispersion of water.  Plaintiffs did not respond to the Motion to preclude and the Trial Court granted it as unopposed in accordance with its local rules.  Plaintiffs also failed to respond to the Motion for summary judgment and only filed a Brief in opposition to the Motion.  Accordingly, the Trial Court granted the Motion for summary judgment, both for the Plaintiffs’ failure to file a Response and because Plaintiffs failed to prove a prima facie case for negligence, trespass, or nuisance.  In response, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for reconsideration, which was denied.  Plaintiffs subsequently appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

The Superior Court reviewed the decisions on the Motion to preclude and Motion for summary judgment for an abuse of discretion.  Plaintiffs did not raise any argument regarding the local rules in their appeal on the Motion to preclude.  As such, the Superior Court found that the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing the local rule and granting the Motion to preclude.  Similarly, the Superior Court determined that the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in granting the Motion for summary judgment based on Plaintiffs’ failure to file a Response.

If you have any questions about this case, or would like to request a copy of the Court’s Opinion, please contact Amanda Hennessey at (717) 237-7103 or ahennessey@tthlaw.com.