STROUD Et Al. v. HALL COUNTY
339 Ga. App. 37
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Don and Mark Stroud own property abutting Walter Stover Road, which Hall County accepted as a county road in 1984; County has performed periodic road maintenance (grading, adding gravel) for decades.
- Don Stroud testified the property once sat 6–7 inches above the road but now ponds water and is lower, and that County maintenance (adding gravel without adequate scraping) raised the road and diverted stormwater onto the property.
- Strouds allege resulting harms: ponding, erosion, vegetation and tree loss, unusable land, and diminished property value; submitted landscaping estimate and lay opinions of lost value and vegetation/tree worth.
- They also allege County removal of ground cover (a “bush hog” incident and other scraping/bush-hogging) during maintenance.
- Procedural posture: Strouds sued for trespass, nuisance, and inverse condemnation; trial court granted County summary judgment on three alternative grounds (no causation, no competent damages evidence, statute-of-limitations). Court of Appeals reverses in part and affirms in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation — Did County maintenance cause elevated road/ponding? | Strouds: lay observations plus testimony that County grading/graveling raised road and diverted water onto property. | County: no evidence County activity changed relative elevations; Stroud testimony is unsupported conclusion. | Court: Reversed — lay observations about increased runoff and maintenance are competent evidence to raise factual dispute on causation. |
| Damages — Did plaintiffs present competent evidence of damages? | Strouds: testified to erosion, mud deposits, dead vegetation, downed trees, unusable land; offered landscaper estimate and lay valuation. | County: landscaper estimate hearsay; Stroud’s value opinion incompetent. | Court: Reversed — law will infer at least nominal damages from invasion of property rights; plaintiffs’ testimony of injury precludes summary judgment. |
| Statute of limitations — Are claims time-barred? | Strouds: nuisance/trespass caused by continuing improper maintenance within 4 years; continuing nuisance so claim timely. | County: flooding permanent nuisance based on road’s existence, so 4-year limit bars suit. | Court: Mixed — claims based on existence of road are permanent and time-barred; claims based on maintenance (recurrent grading/graveling) are continuing and not time-barred for harms within 4 years. |
| Trespass for vegetation removal — Did County repeatedly remove ground cover? | Strouds: affidavit and testimony allege scraping and bush-hogging damaged vegetation on multiple occasions. | County: only one bush-hog incident shown; single incident insufficient; ante litem notice issues. | Court: Reversed — viewing affidavit and deposition favorably, there is evidence of multiple removal incidents; summary judgment improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Toyo Tire N. Am. Mfg., Inc. v. Davis, 299 Ga. 155 (lays out proximate-cause standard and jury role)
- City of Atlanta v. Kleber, 285 Ga. 413 (distinguishes permanent vs. continuing nuisance for drainage/maintenance)
- Oglethorpe Power Corp. v. Forrister, 289 Ga. 331 (continuing nuisance accrual and abatable vs. non- abatable nuisances)
- Newton’s Crest Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Camp, 306 Ga. App. 207 (homeowner lay testimony on increased runoff is competent causation evidence)
- Tyler v. Lincoln, 236 Ga. App. 850 (non-expert opinion about increased water flow admissible; damages may be inferred)