Pollock v. Rose

MANFORD, Judge.

This is a civil action seeking damages due to an alleged obstruction of the flow of surface water. The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant raises two points which, in summary, charge that the trial court erred in its application of the law in that (1) appellants’ case is an exception to the “Common Enemy” doctrine, and (2) the court should adopt the rule of “Reasonable Use” as regards surface waters in urban areas.

The facts disclosed by the record are as follows:

Appellants’ and respondents’ homes are located on adjacent lots on a residential street which has a fairly sharp grade…