Gibson v. Morris

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Tort Law
  • Date Filed: 04-29-2015
  • Case #: A152724
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Sercombe, P.J. for the Court; Hadlock, J.; & Tookey, J.

The Court of Appeals will not overturn a trial court's finding of fact regarding what a party knew or should have known unless, as a matter of law, there is only a single possible conclusion on the evidence and the trial court did not reach it.

Plaintiff Gibson, homeowner, appealed a trial court ruling in favor of Defendant Morris, neighboring property owners, on claims for nuisance and trespass based on water seeping onto Gibson’s property from Morris’ property after Morris installed a new drainage system. On appeal, Gibson argued that the only reasonable factual determination based on the evidence should have been that Morris knew or should have known about the water seeping onto Gibson’s property. At trial, conflicting testimony was presented as to Morris’ knowledge of the drainage onto Gibson’s property. Using this evidence, the trial court held that Morris did not know of the water seeping onto Gibson’s property, and acted reasonably in not discovering it. The Court deferred to the trial court as the proper finder of fact, holding the determination of whether Morris knew or should have known, as a question of fact, will not be overturned unless, as a matter of law, there is only one factual determination supported by the evidence, and the trial court decided to the contrary. Affirmed.

Advanced Search

Back to Top