Rainwater Natural Flow Theory / Civil Law

[Rooty1]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Idaho

Greetings, seeking codes/statutes that speak to Natural Flow Theory / Civil Law with regard to rainwater.

Is it true that each possessor is legally privileged to make a reasonable use of his land?

If the flow of surface water is NOT altered, can one be held liable should another be harmed?

Any assistance will be greatly appreciated - thanks!

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Idaho

Greetings, seeking codes/statutes that speak to Natural Flow Theory / Civil Law with regard to rainwater.

Is it true that each possessor is legally privileged to make a reasonable use of his land?

If the flow of surface water is NOT altered, can one be held liable should another be harmed?

Any assistance will be greatly appreciated - thanks!

This is an issue that was just addressed in a thread recently (albeit for a poster from California).

The general theory is that the liability of a property owner to damages caused by rainwater tends to arise when the natural course of the rainwater is altered by a property owner and this alteration harms another.

 

[Rooty1]

'Rainwater Natural Flow Theory / Civil Law

This is an issue that was just addressed in a thread recently (albeit for a poster from California).

The general theory is that the liability of a property owner to damages caused by rainwater tends to arise when the natural course of the rainwater is altered by a property owner and this alteration harms another.

Thank you, would this include a driveway that has existed for nearly 30 years that runs onto a non-maintained county road?

Also, must the damaged party have title to, or possession of the property at the time the damage occurred?

Does Idaho have a code/statute that speaks to this issue?

 

[quincy]

Thank you, would this include a driveway that has existed for nearly 30 years that runs onto a non-maintained county road?

Also, must the damaged party have title to, or possession of the property at the time the damage occurred?

Does Idaho have a code/statute that speaks to this issue?

It could apply to a driveway that existed for 30 years. If property is damaged, the one claiming damage must have an ownership interest in the property.

Here is a link to the other thread: https://forum.freeadvice.com/homeowners-insurance-80/umbrella-coverage-629370.html

To repeat a case cited there that is oft-cited in other states, here is the link again to Keys v. Romley, 64 Cal.2d.396: http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/keys-v-romley-29982

And, from Idaho's Supreme Court on property ownership and damages, Thompson v. Bingham, 302 P.2d 948, 1956: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10408010057497036644&q=Idaho+rainwater+natural+flow+liability&hl=en&as_sdt=4,13

 

[Rooty1]

It could apply to a driveway that existed for 30 years. If property is damaged, the one claiming damage must have an ownership interest in the property.

Here is a link to the other thread: https://forum.freeadvice.com/homeowners-insurance-80/umbrella-coverage-629370.html

To repeat a case cited there that is oft-cited in other states, here is the link again to Keys v. Romley, 64 Cal.2d.396: http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinions/keys-v-romley-29982

And, from Idaho's Supreme Court, Thompson v. Bingham, 302 P.2d 948, 1956: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10408010057497036644&q=Idaho+rainwater+natural+flow+liability&hl=en&as_sdt=4,13

Quincy, thank you so very much.

On another note, is it possible for an assessor in Idaho to create a parcel for just a bridge and only a bridge with no real property attached?

Thank you!

 

[quincy]

Quincy, thank you so very much.

On another note, is it possible for an assessor in Idaho to create a parcel for just a bridge and only a bridge with no real property attached?

Thank you!

Okay. This last question of yours has me puzzled.

Could you explain please? Thanks.

 

[Rooty1]

Okay. This last question of yours has me puzzled.

Could you explain please? Thanks.

I have reason to believe the bridge is owned by the county but they refuse to admit it. The county said, "No one owns the bridge." Recently, someone filed a quitclaim deed with the county for just the bridge who in turns plans to create a new parcel for the bridge only - no real property involved. You can't make this stuff up

No other deed exists; only the quitclaim deed.

 

[justalayman]

I have reason to believe the bridge is owned by the county but they refuse to admit it. The county said, "No one owns the bridge." Recently, someone filed a quitclaim deed with the county for just the bridge who in turns plans to create a new parcel for the bridge only - no real property involved. You can't make this stuff up

No other deed exists; only the quitclaim deed.

Unless this is a hovering bridge, it involves real property. Somebody owns that property.

 

[quincy]

I have reason to believe the bridge is owned by the county but they refuse to admit it. The county said, "No one owns the bridge." Recently, someone filed a quitclaim deed with the county for just the bridge who in turns plans to create a new parcel for the bridge only - no real property involved. You can't make this stuff up

No other deed exists; only the quitclaim deed.

Oh, yes. That bridge.

You have been wrestling with this issue for quite awhile. How frustrating. justalayman, you might want to look at Rooty1's posting history.

Isn't an HOA claiming ownership in the bridge/property now?

 

[Rooty1]

Rainwater Natural Flow Theory / Civil Law and more...

Oh, yes. That bridge.

You have been wrestling with this issue for quite awhile. How frustrating. justalayman, you might want to look at Rooty1's posting history.

YES ... THE BRIDGE AGAIN

Isn't an HOA claiming ownership in the bridge/property now?

A bridge assoc. was formed and tried to force everyone to join - that went over like a lead balloon. So, the entity that built the bridge in the 1960s (on what looks like a county easement) gave the assoc. a quitclaim deed to the bridge only.

Now the county plans to create a parcel based on the quitclaim deed description which is the bridge ONLY.

I say the county is full of bologna.

 

[justalayman]

Oh, That bridge.

I hope op isn't still trying to make the county replace the swinging footbridge capable with one capable of carrying vehicle traffic.


(As justy stirs the pot and laughs his evil laugh)

 

[justalayman]

A bridge assoc. was formed and tried to force everyone to join - that went over like a lead balloon. So, the entity that built the bridge in the 1960s (on what looks like a county easement) gave the assoc. a quitclaim deed to the bridge only.

Now the county plans to create a parcel based on the quitclaim deed description which is the bridge ONLY.

I say the county is full of bologna.

So who owns the land the bridge sets upon?

Does the county still retain rights in the easement spoken of
Before?

 

[quincy]

Why the current questions about rainwater, Rooty?




(I have always liked your evil laugh, justalayman. )

 

[Rooty1]

Rainwater Natural Flow Theory / Civil Law and more...

Oh, That bridge.

I hope op isn't still trying to make the county replace the swinging footbridge capable with one capable of carrying vehicle traffic.


(As justy stirs the pot and laughs his evil laugh)

The county abandoned the bridge by claiming it had been abandoned by the public. Evidence says otherwise. Shortly thereafter, that bridge was removed and a private entity constructed a new bridge using the county's abutments. Have found no evidence the county ever abandoned their ROW which explains why the county records show, "No one owns the bridge." The ROW on the east end of the bridge still shows on their map.

 

[Rooty1]

'Rainwater Natural Flow Theory / Civil Law and more...

So who owns the land the bridge sets upon?

Does the county still retain rights in the easement spoken of
Before?

The riverbed is owned by a private individual. The bank above the high water line is owned by the county. The road before and after the bridge is a non-maintained county road.

Repeated inquiries to the county have been ignored. Now they say they are going to create a parcel for the bridge ONLY.