REIBER, C.J.
Plaintiffs sought relief from the City of Rutland after suffering sewage
backups in their homes. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City,
concluding that plaintiffs failed to adequately support their negligence,
nuisance, trespass, and constitutional takings claims. Plaintiffs appeal,
arguing that they produced sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment. We
affirm the court’s decision
Plaintiffs suggest that a taking has
occurred, citing Winn v. Vill. of Rutland,
52 Vt. 481, 494-95 (1880) (stating that
village authorities had no “right to make the lands of the plaintiff a place of
deposit for the sewage of the village, creating there a cesspool and nuisance,
and endangering the lives of the plaintiff and his family, without first making
compensation therefor,” and “[s]uch use of the plaintiff’s lands amounts to a
taking of his land within the purview of the constitutional requirement that
compensation shall be made”)
The City is not immune from takings
claims. For a property loss to be compensable as a taking, the government must
“intend[] to invade a protected property interest or the asserted invasion
[must be] the direct, natural, or probable result of an authorized activity and
not the incidental or consequential injury inflicted by the action.” Ondovchik Family 21 Ltd. P’ship, 2010 VT
35, ¶ 16
Although temporary, repeated
incursions can sometimes rise to the level of a taking, the incursions must
“amount to the taking of an easement. When the intrusion is limited and
transient in nature and occurs for legitimate governmental reasons, it does not
amount to a taking. Ondovchik, 2010
VT 35, ¶ 18 To the extent that we suggested otherwise in Winn v. Vill. of Rutland, 52 Vt. 481, 491-93 (1880), that
suggestion is no longer good law
No comments:
Post a Comment