dissenting.
I would hold that, as a matter of law, two occurrences of sewage backing up do not constitute a continuing nuisance. As the Court of Appeals stated in Southeastern Liquid Fertilizer Co. v. Chapman, 103 Ga. App. 773, 775 (120 SE2d 651) (1961):
The whole idea of nuisance is that of either a continuous or regularly repetitious act or condition which causes the hurt, inconvenience or injury. (Emphasis in original.)
Because the acts complained of here are neither continuous nor regularly repetitious, I respectfully dissent.
*142Decided March 15, 1991 — Reconsideration denied March 28, 1991. Johnson & Montgomery, Albert Sidney Johnson, Nisbet S. Kendrick III, for appellant. Gail C. Flake, for appellee. James F. Grubiak, Oliver Hunter, amicus curiae.