Negligence; Duty; Causation; Prematurity; Trespass

Concluding that the trial court erred by prematurely granting summary disposition in defendant-appellee’s (Arbor Hills Landfill) favor when genuine disputes of material fact remained, the court reversed and remanded. The case involved the flooding of two of plaintiffs’ properties located downhill and to the west of defendant’s landfill. Defendant argued that plaintiffs could not “create a fact question that [defendant] had a duty to design a water retention system to accommodate a flood of the magnitude that occurred[.]” Plaintiffs first contended that there was a material question of fact as to the severity of the storm. The court concluded “that the evidence plaintiffs submitted created a genuine issue of material fact regarding the severity of the storm and the credibility of” a professional Meteorologist and Consultant who classified the storm as a 200-year event. The court analyzed “defendant’s duty of care under common law,” which imposes “‘on every person engaged in the prosecution of any undertaking an obligation to use due care, or to so govern his actions as not to unreasonably endanger the person or property of others.’” As to causation, the court concluded “that the evidence plaintiffs submitted created a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether defendant: (1) failed to maintain its stormwater management system, and (2) had notice that its stormwater management system posed an ongoing threat to nearby properties. Whether defendant’s conduct—in the maintenance (or lack of maintenance) of its stormwater management system—was a proximate cause of plaintiffs’ injuries is a question for the jury.” Thus, it found that “the trial court erred by granting summary disposition in defendant’s favor.” Further, the court held that because “there was a reasonable chance that further discovery into these issues could have resulted in factual support for plaintiffs’ claims, summary disposition was premature.” Finally, as to the trespass claim, the court concluded that for the reasons it previously discussed, there was “a genuine dispute as to whether the flow of water in this case was natural or the result of a poorly maintained stormwater management system.” There was “also a genuine dispute as to whether defendant knew or reasonably should have known that its actions could lead to a flood. Therefore, the trial court improperly dismissed plaintiffs’ claim for trespass.”