389.660. Right-of-way to be drained--duty of railroad to construct and maintain ditches and drains--violations subject to injunction and damages, costs and expenses.
Right-of-way to be drained--duty of railroad to construct and maintainditches and drains--violations subject to injunction and damages,costs and expenses.
389.660. It shall be the duty of every corporation or personowning or operating any railroad or branch thereof in this state,and of any corporation or person constructing any railroad inthis state, within three months after the completion of the samethrough any county in this state, to cause to be constructed andmaintained suitable openings across and through the right-of-wayand roadbed of such railroad, and suitable ditches and drainsalong the roadbed of such railroad, to connect with ditches,drains and watercourses, so as to afford sufficient outlet todrain and carry off the water, including surface water, alongsuch railroad whenever the draining of such water has beenobstructed or rendered necessary by the construction of suchrailroad, except that such openings, ditches and drains shall notbe required to be reconstructed by the corporation to accommodatechanges in land conditions not caused by the corporation. Anycorporation or person owning land adjoining such railroad wheresuch ditches or drains are necessary is authorized to require therailroad company to construct and maintain such ditches or drainsby an action against the railroad company for a mandatoryinjunction; and in case such corporation or person shall fail orneglect to construct and maintain such ditches or drains withinthe time limited in this chapter, any corporation or personowning land adjoining such railroad where such ditches or drainsare necessary is hereby authorized, after giving thirty days'notice, in writing, to such owner or operator of such railroad,by service upon any person authorized to receive service of legalprocess on behalf of the corporation within this state, to causesuch ditches, drains, openings, culverts or trestles to beconstructed and maintained, and such landowner may maintain anaction against such corporation, company or person so failing toconstruct and maintain such ditches or drains, in any court ofcompetent jurisdiction, and shall be entitled to recover allcosts, expenses and damages incurred and accruing in theconstruction and maintenance of or damages for failure toconstruct and maintain such ditches, drains, openings, culvertsor trestles which actions for damages and for mandatoryinjunction under this subsection shall be the only remediesmaintainable against a railroad company for its failure toconstruct and maintain suitable ditches and drains.
(RSMo 1939 § 5222, A.L. 1953 p. 517, A.L. 1976 S.B. 616, A.L. 1988 S.B. 676)Prior revisions: 1929 § 4765; 1919 § 9953; 1909 § 3150
(1951) Deed reciting agreement that drainage ditch is sufficient and adequate to protect plaintiff's lands from overflow constitutes no bar to an action for damages to land resulting from negligent maintenance of such ditch by railroad. Struckoff v. Thompson (A.), 241 S.W.2d 39.
(1956) Where railroad maintained a fill for its tracks which blocked the flow of water in a natural watercourse in flood time it was liable for damages resulting from the flood. Buschellberg v. C.B. & Q.R. Co. (A.), 289 S.W.2d 447.
(1967) There is no duty on a railroad to let water through its embankment unless there exists a connecting ditch, drain, or watercourse below the embankment into which the water may flow as the laws place upon a railroad no duty, and grants it no permission, to enter upon any servient land to construct or to enlarge any existing ditch, drain or watercourse to increase its water carrying capacity and a railroad may not make an opening in its roadbed and discharge accumulated surface water on an adjacent property, when no ditch, drain or watercourse exists to carry it away without incurring liability for such action. Temple v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Co. (Mo.), 417 S.W.2d 97.
(1974) Held this section is not an exclusive remedy and does not bar a common law action for trespass. Hawkins v. Burlington Northern Inc. (Mo.), 514 S.W.2d 593.