Armstrong v. Francis Corp. case brief

 Armstrong v. Francis Corp. (1956)

FACTS
-D (land developer) drained off excess water from its land by means of culverts and pipes, thereby causing severe injury to its neighbor’s property.

1. Rule: A possessor of land is not privileged to discharge upon adjoining land, by artificial means, large quantities of surface water in a concentrated flow otherwise than through natural drainways, regardless of the means by which the surface water is collected and discharged.
2. Brennan says that while most states adopt common enemy rule, no state applies it literally. Cts will read in a “reasonable use” approach which is flexible. Factors include: amt. of harm caused, foreseeability, purpose or motive, value judgments
3. Common Enemy Rule: absolute freedom to ward your land from surface water
4. Civil Law Rule: absolute liability for interfering with natural flow of surface water to cause an invasion to another’s interests in use and enjoyment of land.