ROOPE v ANACONDA COMPANY

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12086 I N THE SUPREME C U T O T E STATE O M N A A OR F H F OTN 1972 DENNIS ROOPE, BETTY ROOPE, JAMES ROOPE, RICHARD ANDERSEN, and CHERYL ANDERSEN, -vs P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s , - THE ANACONDA COMPANY, A Montana Corporation, ....................... Defendant and Respondent. IVAN H. FREED, DON COLLINS, and C R L COLLINS, OA P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s , -VS- THE ANACONDA COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable James D. Freebourn, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellants : N e i l J. Lynch argued, B u t t e , Montana. For Respondents : Poore, McKenzie and Roth, B u t t e , Montana. Robert F. Poore argued, B u t t e , Montana. February 15, 1972 Submitted: Decided : MAR 8 - 1gp M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. A l l p l a i n t i f f s i n two flood damage c a s e s b r i n g t h i s c o n s o l i d a t e d a p p e a l from summary judgments granted i n favor of a s i n g l e common defendant by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of S i l v e r Bow County, t h e Hon. James D. Freebourn p r e s i d i n g . I n midafternoon o f J u l y 2 8 , 1970, a n extremely s e v e r e r a i n and h a i l storm of lFcloudburs p r o p o r t i o n s h i t t h e western t" r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a o f B u t t e , Montana. The p r i n c i p a l p a r t o f t h i s storm l a s t e d about h a l f an hour and caused a tremendous amount o f h a i l and water t o f a l l i n t h e a r e a . This water flowed down- h i l l following t h e contours of t h e land. I n t h i s process con- s i d e r a b l e water damage and flooding occurred t o t h e r e s i d e n c e s , household f u r n i s h i n g and p e r s o n a l e f f e c t s of t h e v a r i o u s p l a i n tiffs. A d d i t i o n a l l y , one of t h e p l a i n t i f f s claims damages f o r personal i n j u r i e s . A l l of t h e p l a i n t i f f s r e s i d e i n t h e Clark S t r e e t g u l c h a r e a of t h e "Butte H i l l " . The "Butte H i l l " s l o p e s g e n e r a l l y from n o r t h t o s o u t h and i s s e r r a t e d by numerous gulches and g u l l i e s which a l s o d r a i n from n o r t h t o s o u t h . These gulches and g u l l i e s , w i t h t h e i r accompanying r i d g e s and s l o p e s , a r e l a r g e l y covered by r e s i d e n t i a l p r o p e r t i e s w i t h paved s t r e e t s and a l l e y s . The C l a r k S t r e e t g u l c h a r e a h e r e involved i s about f o u r blocks wide i n a n east-west d i r e c t i o n and a t l e a s t t h r e e o r f o u r times a s long i n a north-south d i r e c t i o n . C l a r k S t r e e t occupies t h e bottom o f a n o r t h - s o u t h g u l l y which i s bounded by r i d g e s on both t h e e a s t and t h e west. Drainage t o C l a r k S t r e e t comes both from t h e n o r t h o r u p h i l l a r e a of t h e "Butte H i l l r 1 and from t h e e a s t and west r i d g e s s l o p i n g downhill t o C l a r k S t r e e t a t t h e bottom. A t t h e n o r t h end of t h e C l a r k S t r e e t b a s i n i s t h e Anselmo mine of t h e defendant, The Anaconda Company. i s l o c a t e d a t t h e Anselmo mine. A l a r g e waste dump Below t h e dump t h e r e i s a L i t t l e League b a s e b a l l park and b l e a c h e r s , surrounded by a wooden fence. S t i l l f u r t h e r downhill i s l o c a t e d a two-family r e s i d e n c e a t 715 West Quartz occupied a t t h e time of t h e c l o u d b u r s t by t h e Richard Anderson and Dennis Roope f a m i l i e s , t h e former a s owners and t h e l a t t e r a s tenants. Members of t h e s e two f a m i l i e s a r e t h e p l a i n t i f f s i n one s u i t h e r e i n appealed. T h e i r dwelling i s l o c a t e d about two blocks downhill t o t h e s o u t h o f d e f e n d a n t ' s Anselmo mine and immediately west o f C l a r k S t r e e t ; i t i s a l s o a somewhat l e s s e r d i s t a n c e downhill and t o t h e s o u t h from t h e L i t t l e League b a l l park which i s l o c a t e d on t h e s l o p e between t h e Anselmo mine and these p l a i n t i f f s ' residence. S t i l l f u r t h e r s o u t h about f o u r blocks downhill from t h e Andersan-Roope r e s i d e n c e , t h e dwelling o f t h e p l a i n t i f f s i n t h e is second s u i t / l o c a t e d . This dwelling i s a l s o a two-family r e s i d e n c e occupied by Ivan H. Freed a s owner and t h e Don C o l l i n s family a s tenants. T h i s r e s i d e n c e i s l o c a t e d , ' a t 715 West Galena which i s j u s t o f f C l a r k S t r e e t t o t h e west. There a r e no r i v e r s , c r e e k s , o r streams i n t h e a r e a i n volved i n t h i s a p p e a l , A l l of t h e f l o o d waters f e l l from t h e sky i n a sudden c l o u d b u r s t of unprecedented p r o p o r t i o n s . The complaints i n both a c t i o n s were f i l e d about a month are a f t e r t h e c l o u d b u r s t a n d / s s e n t i a l l y i d e n t i c a l (except a s t o damages which a r e n o t germane t o t h i s a p p e a l ) . names a s i n g l e defendant, The Anaconda Company. Each complaint P l a i n t i f f s seek t o recover f o r damage t o t h e i r r e s i d e n c e s and p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y from water t h a t flooded i n t o t h e i r dwellings d u r i n g t h e c l o u d b u r s t . P l a i n t i f f s claim negligence on t h e p a r t of defendant i n " c r e a t i n g a n a r t i f i c i a l d i v e r s i o n of water on i t s p r o p e r t y which r e s u l t e d i n t h e f l o o d i n g and damages." Defendant's answer amounted t o a g e n e r a l d e n i a l of any negligence on i t s p a r t coupled w i t h t h e a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e t h a t t h e damage was caused by an "Act of God". P r e t r i a l d i s c o v e r y proceedings were c a r r i e d on by t h e defendant c o n s i s t i n g of w r i t t e n i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s and d e p o s i t i o n s taken from s i x of t h e p l a i n t i f f s . Following t h e f i l i n g o f t h e answers t o t h e s e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s and t h e t y p e w r i t t e n d e p o s i t i o n s , defendant moved f o r summary judgment i n both a c t i o n s . It i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h a t t h e p r e s i d i n g judge was f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e a r e a and i n r u l i n g on t h e motions f o r summary judgment took j u d i c i a l n o t i c e "of t h e genera 1 r e s i d e n t i a 1 neighborhood h e r e involved and t h e land contours and t h e p r o p e r t i e s of Defendant i n t h a t a r e a , i n c l u d i n g t h e Anselmo Mine Dump which e x i s t e d i n i t s p r e s e n t c o n d i t i o n f o r many years". Defendant's motion f o r summary judgment i n each of t h e two s u i t s was g r a n t e d following a c o n s o l i d a t e d h e a r i n g . All p l a i n t i f f s now a p p e a l from t h e summary judgments g r a n t e d . The c o n t r o l l i n g i s s u e i n t h i s a p p e a l i s whether t h e r e i s any genuine i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t precluding summary judgment f o r t h e defendant. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e l d t h e r e was no i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t defendant was e n t i t l e d t o judgment a s a matter o f law. W affirm. e The g i s t of p l a i n t i f f s ' c o n t e n t i o n i s t h a t defendant, The Anaconda Company, i n t e r f e r e d w i t h t h e n a t u r a l d r a i n a g e i n t h e a r e a and t h i s , combined w i t h a n "Act of God" c o n s i s t i n g of t h e cloudb u r s t , caused p l a i n t i f f s ' flooding and damage f o r which defendant is l e g a l l y responsible. Upon o r a l argument p l a i n t i f f s contended t h e following i s s u e s of f a c t e x i s t concerning d e f e n d a n t ' s i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h n a t u r a l drainage: (1) whether Anaconda's d e b r i s plugged t h e storm sewer d r a i n s ; (2) whether a n Anaconda mine c a r blocked t h e flowage of water; (3) whether Anaconda's Anselmo mine dump was s o c o n s t r u c t e d a s t o d i v e r t d r a i n a g e ; and (4) whether t h e L i t t l e League b a l l park, s i t u a t e d on land owned by Anaconda and l e a s e d t o t h e c i t y o f B u t t e , was c o n s t r u c t e d i n such a manner a s t o approximate a g i a n t "bathtub" impounding t h e water and suddenly r e l e a s i n g i t i n l a r g e q u a n t i t i e s when t h e fence broke, thereby f l o o d i n g t h e p l a i n t i f f s . Unfortunately f o r p l a i n t i f f s t h e r e i s n o t one s c r a p of evidence t o subs t a n t i a t e t h e s e claims. O o r a l argument p l a i n t i f f s ' n counsel acknowledged t h a t t h e s e claims were s p e c u l a t i v e with no e v i d e n t i a r y b a s i s i n t h e record. The d i s t r i c t judge s p e c i f i c a l l y concluded: '* * * t h a t t h e Defendant d i d n o t dam up o r channel t h e s u r f a c e waters h e r e involved but t h a t t h e same flowed from t h e heavens a s an Act of God and then followed t h e g e n e r a l downg r a d e contours of Defendant's p r o p e r t i e s which had been e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e lawful b u s i n e s s o f mining and o f f therefrom o n t o t h e s t r e e t s , a l l e y s and p r i v a t e p r o p e r t i e s of t h e r e s i d e n t i a 1 a r e a h e r e involved; and f u r t h e r , having considered t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f p l a i n t i f f s t h a t Defendant had a l l e g e d l y d i v e r t e d t h e n a t u r a l flow of waters by a small mine timber t r u c k which does n o t and cannot c o n s t i t u t e a t r u e dam o r channel f o r water s o a s t o r e r o u t e t h e same t o t h e lands of p l a i n t i f f s ; and t h e Court having concluded t h a t t h e waters of t h i s sudden c l o u ~ b u r s twere t h e common enemy of a l l t h e landowners i n t h e a r e a and none t h e r e o f were l i a b l e t o h i s neighbors f o r t h e waters which d r a i n e d and flowed downgrade thereon * * **" There i s simply no evidence t o t h e c o n t r a r y and a c c o r d i n g l y nothing t o t r y before a j u r y . Rule 56 (c) , M.R.Civ.P., governs summary judgment and r e q u i r e s t h a t such judgment be granted i f : . "* * * t h e p l e a d i n g s , d e p o s i t i o n s , answers t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , and admissions on f i l e show t h a t t h e r e i s no genuine i s s u e a s t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t t h e moving p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a judgment a s a m a t t e r o f law. * * *" The burden of e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e absence o f any i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t i s on t h e p a r t y seeking summary judgment. Byrne v. P l a n t e , 154 Mont. 6 , 459 P.2d 266,and c i t a t i o n s t h e r e i n . But where, a s h e r e , t h e r e c o r d d i s c l o s e s no genuine i s s u e a s t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t , t h e burden i s upon t h e p a r t y opposing t h e motion t o p r e s e n t evidence of a m a t e r i a l and s u b s t a n t i a l n a t u r e r a i s i n g a genuine i s s u e of f a c t . Flansberg v. Mont. Power Co., 154 Mont. 53, 460 P.2d 263, and a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d t h e r e i n . There i s no f a c t u a l b a s i s i n t h e record h e r e t o s u p p o r t plaintiffs ' a l l e g a t i o n s of negligence on t h e p a r t of defendant. The record simply shows an unprecedented c l o u d b u r s t w i t h t h e r e s u l t i n g waters d r a i n e d downhill by g r a v i t y following t h e topography and contours o f t h e land. An u p h i l l p r o p e r t y m e r owes no duty t o h i s downhill neighbor t o prevent t h e encroachment of such vagrant o r s u r f a c e waters from h i s p r o p e r t y onto h i s neighbor's. Le Munyon v. G a l l a t i n Valley Ry. Co., 60 Mont. 517, 199 P. 915. This Le Munyon r u l e has been reviewed and a f f i r m e d from time t o time i n t h e following Montana c a s e s : S y l v e s t e r v. Anaconda C . Min. Co., 73 Mont. 465, 236 P. 1067; O'Hare v. Johnson, 116 Mont. 410, 153 P.2d 888; S t a t e Highway ~omm'n v. B i a s t o c h Meats, I n c . , 145 Mont. 261, 400 P.2d 274. i s e n t i t l e d t o judgment a s a m a t t e r of law. Accordingly, defendant The summary judgments e n t e r e d by Judge Freebourn i n cause No. 56,789 on June 3 , 1971 and i n cause No. 56,791 on June 4 , 1971, a r e a f f i r m e d . Associate J u s t i c e Associat-e J u s t i c e s Hon. Jack Shanstrom, D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r A s s o c i a t e J u s t i c e Castles.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.