Butler v. Baber
1988 WL 50951, 529 So. 2d 374 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana Civil Code article 667, a lessee whose lawful and non-negligent activities on leased property cause damage to a co-lessee's property interest is held strictly liable. The term "proprietor" is interpreted broadly to include lessees, and liability attaches based on causation and damage, irrespective of the reasonableness of the proprietor's conduct.
Facts:
- George Butler and Leo Bianchini held oyster leases from the State of Louisiana in Wilkinson Bay, where they cultivated and harvested oysters.
- Winston Baber, d/b/a Progress Petroleum Company, held a mineral lease from the State of Louisiana in the same area.
- To facilitate drilling an oil well, Baber determined it was necessary to dredge an access canal into the shallow waters of Wilkinson Bay for his equipment.
- Baber hired Robert Waldron as a consultant, who proposed several routes for the canal.
- From May to October 1978, Baber's contractor dredged a 70-foot-wide canal, which connected Bayou Dupont to Wilkinson Bay.
- Following the dredging, Butler's employees discovered that a thick layer of mud and silt had covered the oyster beds.
- Subsequent investigation by experts for both parties revealed increased oyster mortality, with the oysters being blackened and suffocated by the silt.
- Experts testified that the most likely source of the destructive sediment was Baber's dredging operation.
Procedural Posture:
- George Butler, George Butler, Inc., and Leo Bianchini sued Winston Baber and others in a Louisiana district court (trial court).
- The trial court found in favor of the defendants, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the defendants acted negligently.
- The plaintiffs appealed to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The plaintiffs (as applicants) successfully sought review from the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Louisiana Civil Code article 667, which imposes strict liability on a proprietor for works on his estate that damage a neighbor, apply to a mineral lessee whose non-negligent dredging operations damage the oyster beds of a co-lessee of the same property?
Opinions:
Majority - Dixon, C.J.
Yes, Louisiana Civil Code article 667 applies to a mineral lessee whose non-negligent operations damage a co-lessee. The court holds that the concept of "proprietor" under art. 667 is not limited to landowners but extends to parties holding leasehold interests, and co-lessees can be considered "neighbors." The court distinguishes liability under art. 667 from negligence under art. 2315, stating that recovery under art. 667 is granted despite the reasonableness and prudence of the proprietor's conduct. The critical elements are causation and damage; it is the fact that the activity causes damage, not the manner in which it is carried on, that triggers liability. Therefore, because Baber's dredging operation caused damage to Butler's oyster leases, Baber is strictly liable for the resulting harm.
Concurring - Dennis, J.
Yes, but liability should be based on a different rationale. The proper analysis is under Civil Code art. 2315, defining "fault" by analogy to principles in art. 667 and the Louisiana Mineral Code. The Mineral Code obligates a mineral right holder to exercise their rights with "reasonable regard" for other users of the land. Because the mineral lessee likely had reasonable alternatives that would not have caused substantial damage to the oyster beds, its failure to pursue them constituted a breach of its legal duty and a "fault" under art. 2315. This approach reaches the same result but grounds the liability in a broader concept of fault rather than applying art. 667 directly.
Analysis:
This case significantly expands the scope of strict liability under Louisiana Civil Code art. 667. By extending the definitions of "proprietor" and "neighbor" to include co-lessees of the same property, the court confirmed that the obligations of vicinage apply beyond adjacent landowners. This decision solidifies the principle that liability under art. 667 is not based on negligence but on the act of causing damage, regardless of the care taken. It creates a powerful legal tool for parties whose property interests are harmed by industrial activities, shifting the economic risk of such damage to the party undertaking the activity, even when that activity is lawful and prudently conducted.
