Myra Kay Reilley, Administrator of the Estate of Francis E. Reilley and Myra Kay Reilley, Individually v. The Board of Education of the County of Marshall

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed claims arising from flooding allegedly caused by a road embankment and bridge over Little Grave Creek. The court affirmed the circuit court’s ruling on untimely service and proximate cause, but held that damages from two earlier flooding events were barred by the statute of limitations. It also reversed and remanded the injunction requiring removal of the road and bridge because the circuit court’s order lacked adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Holdings

1. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding good cause to extend the time for service where the plaintiff provided pre-service notice, the defendant knew about the lawsuit, service was only 28 days late, and the defendant suffered no prejudice.
2. The statute of limitations was not tolled by the continuing-tort doctrine because the flooding events were separate, occasional, intermittent, and recurring traumatic events. Damages from the September 17, 2004, and February 1, 2008, floods were therefore time-barred.
3. The evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that the Duck Lane embankment and bridge proximately caused the Board's flooding damages.
4. The circuit court erred by granting injunctive relief without making specific findings of fact and conclusions of law under Rule 52(a), and without an order satisfying Rule 65. The injunction was reversed and remanded for a compliant order.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court properly allowed service of the summons and complaint 148 days after filing under West Virginia Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k).
2. Whether damages from the September 17, 2004, and February 1, 2008, flooding events were barred by the two-year statute of limitations.
3. Whether sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that the Duck Lane embankment and bridge were the proximate cause of the Board's damages.
4. Whether the circuit court erred by granting permanent injunctive relief without making findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rules 52(a) and 65.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded