The plaintiff owned property across the street and downhill from our client’s property in Danville, IN. Our client undertook construction activities on his property, including the addition of commercial buildings and paved parking lots. Sometime after construction began, the plaintiff alleged that her property began to flood when it rained and that the flooding caused structural damage to her home. Plaintiff attributed this flooding and the resulting damage to her property, in part, to our client’s construction, and argued that he was liable under a theory of negligence.  On summary judgment, we argued that the common enemy doctrine, which protects those who erect obstructions that affect surface water,  precluded the plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff responded by filing her own motion for summary judgment, alleging a series of purported issues of fact.  Following oral arguments, the Court agreed that the common enemy doctrine applied. In doing so, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and granted summary judgment for our client.