Youst v. Keck's Food Service, Inc.
94 A.3d 1057
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- The Sargents formerly owned a unitary parcel in Tioga County and in 1992 conveyed adjoining tracts to Keck’s Food Service (Appellant) and the Yousts (Appellees). A dam and pond (Charavoyne Dam) on Keck’s parcel had historically detained water and discharged it via overflow pipes onto the Yousts’ downstream pasture, supplying livestock and regulating runoff.
- In 2005–2009 Keck expanded facilities, altered terrain, enlarged dam features, then in 2009 breached and removed the dam, re-banked the pond, replaced two small overflow pipes with one large 6'×6' conduit, and rechanneled surface flow directly onto the Yousts’ land.
- The Yousts sued for trespass, private nuisance, interference with express easement, interference with implied easement/prior use, interference with easement by necessity, and injunctive relief; the jury decided trespass and private nuisance for the Yousts and found no interference with the express travel easement; the court decided other claims.
- The trial court denied Keck’s motions for nonsuit and JNOV; post-trial the court (after vacating and revisiting an earlier order) entered a permanent injunction ordering Keck to abate periodic flooding in a DEP-compliant manner and found an easement by necessity in the dam/pond/flow.
- On appeal Keck challenged (1) denial of JNOV on nuisance, (2) the easement-by-necessity finding, and (3) the grant of permanent injunctive relief. The appellate court affirmed the nuisance and injunction rulings, vacated the easement-by-necessity ruling, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Youst) | Defendant's Argument (Keck) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether JNOV should have been granted to Keck on private nuisance | Yousts argued Keck’s changes unreasonably increased and concentrated surface/storm water flow, causing significant harm to use/enjoyment of their land | Keck argued changes were reasonable or restored natural conditions and that it had right to discharge surface water; relief should be JNOV because evidence insufficient | Affirmed: Jury verdict for nuisance sustained — reasonable minds could differ; substantial evidence Keck artificially diverted/concentrated surface water and caused harm |
| Whether an easement by necessity existed for the dam/pond/regular orderly flow of water | Yousts argued unity of title and severance created necessity for regular, orderly flow to water livestock and prevent erosion/flooding | Keck argued no strict necessity existed at severance or now (wells and troughs supplied water; alternate pasture available); easement by necessity limited to access/egress historically | Vacated: Court found Yousts failed to prove strict necessity (convenience insufficient); easement-by-necessity cannot be sustained here |
| Whether permanent injunction ordering abatement of flooding was proper | Yousts sought an injunction to abate continuing flooding/nuisance and restore orderly flow or otherwise remedy harm | Keck argued injunction improperly based on an easement theory and that abatement requiring reconstruction of artificial structures exceeds equitable power | Affirmed in part: Permanent injunction to abate the continuing nuisance (flooding) was proper; court’s order directed DEP‑compliant abatement and speaks for itself (appellate court declined to let advisory 1925(a) rationale control) |
| Whether the jury erred on trespass or express easement interference (related factual claims) | Yousts maintained removal and channeling caused trespass and interference with water rights | Keck contended statute of limitations barred trespass and no proof of damages for express easement interference | Jury found trespass (dam removal) and no interference with express travel easement; appellate opinion does not disturb trespass verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Kramer v. Pittsburgh Coal Co., 19 A.2d 362 (Pa. 1941) (definition and scope of nuisance)
- Chamberlin v. Ciaffoni, 96 A.2d 140 (Pa. 1953) (upper landowner’s easement to discharge natural flow from higher land)
- Pfeiffer v. Brown, 30 A. 844 (Pa. 1895) (upper owner not liable for natural flow but liable if water is concentrated, diverted, or increased by artificial means)
- Lucas v. Ford, 69 A.2d 114 (Pa. 1949) (liability when water diverted from natural channel or unnaturally changed in quantity)
- Shamnoski v. PG Energy, 858 A.2d 589 (Pa. 2004) (addressing diversion/concentration of surface water as basis for liability)
- Phillippi v. Knotter, 748 A.2d 757 (Pa. Super. 2000) (elements and strict necessity standard for easement by necessity)
- Markle v. Grothe, 156 A. 585 (Pa. Super. 1931) (determination of natural and reasonable use of land is factual question for jury)