Livingston v. Virginia Dept. of Transp.
284 Va. 140
| Va. | 2012Background
- Plaintiffs, 135 homeowners and renters in Huntington, Fairfax County, allege flood damage from a June 2006 storm to their homes and personal property.
- They sue the County and VDOT for inverse condemnation under Article I, Section 11 of the Virginia Constitution.
- Circuit court demurred, holding a single flood event cannot support an inverse condemnation claim; this ruling is contested.
- Plaintiffs contend relocation and widening of Cameron Run, and Beltway construction in the 1960s, plus sediment buildup and post-construction development, amplified flood damage.
- Corps reports indicate 5–6 feet sediment accumulated 1965–1999 in the relocated Cameron Run, reducing capacity and increasing flood elevations; sedimentation and lack of maintenance are alleged to have worsened the 2006 flood.
- VDOT argues it bears no liability for post-relocation urbanization and that damages from acts after Beltway construction fall outside its duty; the case centers on whether damages from the operation and failure to maintain the channel are compensable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a single flooding event supports inverse condemnation under Art. I, §11 | Livingston asserts one-time flood can be a damaging | VDOT contends only an extraordinary event or act of God could be basis | Yes; a single flooding event can support inverse condemnation |
| Whether plaintiffs have standing to seek compensation under Art. I, §11 | Livingston shows immediate, pecuniary interest in damages | VDOT argues lack of ownership/rental at Beltway construction time | Plaintiffs have standing to seek damages for operation/maintenance after relocation |
| Whether damages can be for physical property, not just appurtenant rights | Omni Homes/Richmeade authorize physical damage recovery | Damages limited to appurtenant rights under Omni Homes | Damages for physical property are recoverable; not limited to appurtenant rights |
| Whether damages must be for a public use to trigger Article I, §11 | Damage arose from public Beltway use | Damages must be directly for public use | Damages were for public use; government’s failure to maintain constitutes compensable damage |
| Whether plaintiffs can recover for personal property damage | Personal property damages are recoverable with appurtenant relation to homes | VDOT argues limits to real property and not personal property | Plaintiffs may recover for appurtenant personal property damaged; recovery limited to property appurtenant to homes |
Key Cases Cited
- Kitchen v. City of Newport News, 275 Va. 378 (Va. 2008) (establishes inverse condemnation for taking/damaging rights)
- Hampton Roads Sanitation Dist. v. McDonnell, 234 Va. 235 (Va. 1987) (one-time discharges can support new inverse condemnation action)
- Jenkins v. County of Shenandoah, 246 Va. 467 (Va. 1993) (discharge from drainage easement; damages to property)
- Richmeade, L.P. v. City of Richmond, 267 Va. 598 (Va. 2004) (damages to appurtenant rights caused by government action)
- Omni Homes, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Prince William County, 253 Va. 59 (Va. 1997) (damages to appurtenant rights; proper scope of damages)
- Burns v. Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, 218 Va. 625 (Va. 1977) (damages for public use; eminent domain framework)
- City of Lynchburg v. Peters, 156 Va. 40 (Va. 1931) (damaged corpus or appurtenant right; physical damage recoverable)
- Cooper v. Horn, 248 Va. 417 (Va. 1994) (act of God; not dispositive for liability; mixed question of law/fact)
- Heldt v. Elizabeth River Tunnel Dist., 196 Va. 477 (Va. 1954) (damages to property from public improvements; maintenance duty)
- Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Fugate, 211 Va. 745 (Va. 1971) (compensation for relocation of personal property in public undertakings)