In recent years, the Ohio Supreme Court appears to have adopted the reasonable-use rule as the basis for court decisions involving disposition of surface water. In the 1976 case of Chudzinski v. Sylvania 8 involving accelerated runoff from a shopping center that caused downstream damages on private property, the appeals court decision provided a detailed statement of the reasonable use rule. In 1977 the village of Mayfield, in Myotte v. Mayfield 9, was found liable for injury for permitting construction of an industrial complex causing flooding of a lower riparian's land by greatly increased runoff of surface water. The court found that the village knew of a flooding problem prior to permitting construction and failed to implement a solution so that increased flow from the industrial park could be accommodated. After a review of the common enemy and civil law doctrines, and information about the stream capacity, the court of appeals chose to apply the "broader, more flexible rule of reasonableness."
The court's 1980 decision in McGlashan v. Spade Rockledge Corp. 3 appears to be dominant in support of application of the reasonable use doctrine. A developer had begun construction of condominiums in the city of Broadview Heights before completing a new drainage system to take care of the altered drainage. An August rainstorm occurred, causing excess runoff from cleared land that carried mud, rocks and other debris onto adjoining property and causing flooding of basements. The Ohio Supreme Court found the developer liable for damages. The court's declaration further stated that the Court adopts a reasonable use rule to be used in resolving surface water controversies as follows: "A possessor of land is not unqualifiedly privileged to deal with surface water as he pleases, nor is he absolutely prohibited from interfering with the natural flow of surface waters to the detriment of others. Each possessor is legally privileged to make a reason able use of his land, even though the flow of surface waters is altered thereby and causes some harm to others. He incurs liability only when his harmful interference with the flow of surface water is unreasonable. In determining the reason' ableness of an interference, the trier of fact is to be guided by the rules stated in 4 Restatement on Torts 2d 108-142, Sections 822 831." The court cited Lunsford v. Stewart 2, Munn v. Horvitz 5, Chudzinski v. Sylvania 8, and Myotte v. Mayfield 9 in making its decision.
Four cases, Lunsford v. Stewart 2, Masley v. Lorain 7, Myotte v. Mayfield 9, and McGlashan v. Spade Rockledge Corp. 3 are important cases that set certain precedents. In particular, the McGlashan v. Spade Rockledge Corp. ruling has been interpreted to be very strong and diminishes the strength of the common enemy and civil law doctrines. Three of the cases mentioned above were recently cited in a court of appeals ruling that upheld a lower court decision in the case of Huggins Farms, Inc. v. Bucyrus Plaza Ltd., et al.' 10 in May of 1989. This unreported Crawford County case involved the interference with surface water drainage that resulted in the regular flooding of 20 acres of land. The court ruled that the interference was unreasonable.
In 1981, the Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga County applied the reasonable use rule in Accurate Die Casting Co. v. Cleveland 11. In this case, a municipality imposed its storm sewer system on a natural watercourse, subsequently causing flood damage to a commercial business. This case is noteworthy, not only because of the application of reasonable use, but the decision that the defense of sovereign immunity does not preclude liability for damages caused by a municipality's negligent design of its storm sewer system. This ruling was ap pealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which would not hear the appeal, thereby supporting the appeals court decision.