Is there a legal term for this?

[jannie123]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? IL.
Our private group was asked to build a tourist attraction on land owned by a public body over 30 + years. The private group maintains the tourist attraction at their expense. The public body has allowed the land around the tourist attraction (which the public body agrees is theirs to maintain) to deteriorate and now water that previously drained away from the private owned tourist attraction building has started to cause deterioration of the privately owned building.
Is there a legal term for this I could research. The public body was informed of the continuing problem and ignored it.

Would this group have any claims against the public body for harm to their building? Thank you

 

[HomeGuru]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? IL.
Our private group was asked to build a tourist attraction on land owned by a public body over 30 + years. The private group maintains the tourist attraction at their expense. The public body has allowed the land around the tourist attraction (which the public body agrees is theirs to maintain) to deteriorate and now water that previously drained away from the private owned tourist attraction building has started to cause deterioration of the privately owned building.
Is there a legal term for this I could research. The public body was informed of the continuing problem and ignored it.

Would this group have any claims against the public body for harm to their building? Thank you

**A: what does "this" actually mean?

 

[tranquility]

Drainage issues can be complex. Illinois is a common enemy rule state. (Google it.) But, as I said, complex.

See also:
http://web.aces.uiuc.edu/vista/pdf_pubs/DRAINAGE98.PDF

 

[jannie123]

Home Guru - Not sure which "this" you are confused about. The one "this" was the drainage problem; the second "this" referred to the group that owns the building.

Next. I will google what was referred to. I thought the owner of the property that was allowing a problem for the private owned attraction might be liable to correct the problem? From an average person's point of view -- I would call it negligence on the part of the public body, but I thought there was a "legal term" or "legal principal".

Thanks

 

[jannie123]

How does common enemy affect the theory of Duty of Care? The public body is tasked by local statute to maintain the grounds around the tourist attraction. The public body is evicting the tourist attraction because they claim the building is deteriorating and in disrepair. The building can be left or removed - the public body doesn't care.

The private owned tourist attraction offered to pay to fix the drainage problem occurring on the public owned land and supposedly maintained, but the offer was refused.

Is the public body negligent because they are the direct cause of the damage, and they didn't provide duty of care??, there was harm and they caused damage.

Thank you

 

[tranquility]

How does common enemy affect the theory of Duty of Care?

They are unrelated. What Duty of Care are you talking about?

Is the public body negligent because they are the direct cause of the damage, and they didn't provide duty of care??, there was harm and they caused damage.

"They" didn't cause any damage. The water did. That nasty common enemy of property owners. Again, what is the duty of care?

Property law is hard, but, even with the statute, this seems easy. Have you seen any local attorney who gives you a different opinion?

 

[jannie123]

I guess legally "they" didn't cause the damage - But didn't "they" allow the water to flow to damage a building even though they were informed that it was damaging the building.

To me I thought the public body had a duty of care which I assumed was a standard of reasonable care when maintaining their public property since it was in local statutes. However, it appears that's not the case. It appears like there may be no cause for negligence against this public body and they have acted in a although not prudently, legally.

 

[tranquility]

But didn't "they" allow the water to flow to damage a building even though they were informed that it was damaging the building.

Did you look up anything regarding the common enemy rule? Anything at all?

No matter the rule, there has to be alterations to the land for there to be any potential of liability. A lack of maintenance is not an alteration. Notification is irrelevant.

To me I thought the public body had a duty of care which I assumed was a standard of reasonable care when maintaining their public property since it was in local statutes.

My streets have potholes. Who do I see about that?

It appears like there may be no cause for negligence against this public body and they have acted in a although not prudently, legally.

While I agree there is no negligence in this, I disagree they did not act "prudently". It is not their duty to protect your land. As long as the water flowed as it has always flowed they are being quite prudent. It is very old law. When a law is very old and does not really change in all that time, it reflects the sense of the community for hundreds of years. To do more than required hardly seems prudent.

 

[jannie123]

I read about common enemy. I understand that won’t help our case. Just to clarify the tourist attraction (building) doesn’t own the land underneath them – but paid for and built the building on the public body land. The building is surrounded by a small amount of public body land maintained by that public body.
a. The public body claims the building is in poor shape. (it looks fine). b. The public body wants the tourist attraction gone; because (public body) just wants it gone. c. There was a verbal lease agreement when building was built – which no one seems to dispute. Then, about 30 years ago tourist attraction asked public body for a written agreement – “told, no need for this expense to draw up, everything is fine the way it was” . 10 years ago public body wanted written lease – their lawyer wrote it up – tourist attraction found error in lease where it stated public body had built and owned the building; tourist attraction sent back lease with that correction - public body didn’t build. Lease never returned to sign. 1 year ago, public body said “we need a written lease”, tourist attraction said good, public body owners of land never replied back and ignored all communication regarding a written lease.

The common enemy (water) was very interesting. Thank you.