Court assesses damages in Milton property flooding dispute over fence and yard

In a pivotal oral argument session held on May 5, 2025, in Massachusetts, the court examined a significant case involving property damage due to alleged water diversion. The discussion centered on the conflicting estimates for damages related to a fence and yard, raising questions about the validity of expert testimony and the court's findings.

The case revolves around a homeowner, referred to as Miss Battle, who claimed damages to her property after water was allegedly diverted onto her land. The court had previously awarded her $22,750 for reseeding her yard, but did not grant compensation for the fence, which had been cited for disrepair prior to the flooding incident. The stark contrast between two estimates for fence replacement—$19.64 per linear foot versus $89 per linear foot—was a focal point of the argument, with the defense questioning the relevance of the higher estimate.

The defense argued that the court's decision to disregard the fence damages was justified, as there was no clear evidence linking the fence's deterioration to the flooding. They emphasized that the court accepted the damage to the yard but not to the fence, which had been in poor condition prior to the incident.

A key aspect of the argument involved the credibility of expert witness Mr. Tiberi, who had not visited the property during the rain event and based his testimony on photographs and videos. The defense contended that his lack of direct observation undermined the reliability of his conclusions regarding water flow alterations caused by Miss Battle's actions.

The court's deliberations highlighted the legal standards for trespass and nuisance, emphasizing that the homeowner's right to possession and the intentional entry of water onto her property were sufficient grounds for the court's findings. The argument concluded with a strong assertion that the actions taken to divert water were unreasonable and constituted a nuisance, reinforcing the court's authority to make such determinations based on the evidence presented.

As the case progresses, the implications for property rights and liability in water diversion cases remain significant, with potential impacts on future legal interpretations in Massachusetts. The court's decision will likely set a precedent for how similar disputes are resolved, particularly regarding the responsibilities of property owners in managing water flow.