Archer v. City of Los Angeles

[521]

WHITE, J.,

pro tem.

This is an appeal by plaintiffs from a judgment in favor of defendant Los Angeles County Flood Control District, entered after the demurrer of respondent district to the first, fourth and fifth causes of action of plaintiffs’ second amended complaint was sustained by the court below without leave to amend.

Plaintiffs undertake to state causes of action based upon damages to their real property resulting from the negligent building, construction and operation of an artificial drainage system over the drainage area commonly known as La Ballona Creek, near Venice, in Los Angeles County; alleging that by means of said drainage system the surface waters falling and collecting upon the said drainage area have been diverted from their natural flow and collected into large underground conduits and underground laterals to said conduits, said water being thereby prevented from spreading out over the strip of land referred to as La Ballona Creek, as said waters theretofore had, and that as a result thereof said surface waters are no longer permitted to find their way slowly to the Pacific Ocean, as they theretofore had, before the construction by respondent of the drainage system. The first cause of action further alleges that as a result of the construction by respondent of said artificial drainage system, the surface waters are “diverted, concentrated and accelerated to such an extent that when they arrive at a point near Venice, the La Ballona Lagoon ... is not of sufficient size to properly carry said waters, so diverted . . . into the Pacific Ocean”, as a result of which, it is alleged, the storm waters overflowed and inundated portions of Venice, including plaintiffs’ properties, said waters standing thereon from six to eight feet, and remaining for three or four days before such water could make its way to the Pacific Ocean. The allegations of the three counts of plaintiffs’ second amended complaint in question here are substantially the same. Respondent contends that plaintiffs’ complaint simply alleges that their damage was caused by the inadequacy of the outlet of La Ballona lagoon to the Pacific Ocean; that this was the primary and efficient cause of plaintiffs’ damage; that respondent did not produce it, and had nothing whatever to do with it. We cannot agree with respondent in this claim. The gist of appellants’ see