Hempfield pair sue over flooding
Hempfield property owners whose Bonita Drive home was flooded during heavy rains over the past two years filed suit against the township this week in Westmoreland County, alleging poor construction and maintenance of a storm water management system allowed the repeated flooding.
Josephine and Lester Grimm claim that heavy rains damaged their residence and property and caused health problems.
The suit contents the township was aware of the flooding problem but failed to inspect the system to make sure it was working properly. The system was supposed to divert storm water into a retention pond.
Township solicitor Les Mlakar is unavailable for comment.
The Grimms said the constant flooding has allowed black mold to grow in their home near Fort Allen, which has triggered Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and other respiratory ailments, causing pneumonia and breathing problems, according to the lawsuit.
Josephine Grimm alleges she fell in the wet conditions and broke ribs and a hip.
The damage led to a loss in value of the home, the suit says.
In 2010, the Grimms sued the township and Hempfield Township Municipal Authority, alleging similar problems from flooding in 2009. The municipal authority was dropped from the suit, but the case is pending against the township.
In that incident, Josephine Grimm alleges that she broke her leg and suffered back injuries when she stepped onto water-soaked steps. Lester Grimm alleges he suffered a heart attack while cleaning up.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.