Crouch v. North Alabama Sand & Gravel, LLC
2015 Ala. LEXIS 41, 177 So.3d 200, 2015 WL 1388139 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Alabama, a plaintiff's lay testimony describing property damage and severe vibrations from nearby blasting operations is sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact to defeat a defendant's motion for summary judgment on claims of abnormally dangerous activity, wantonness, and nuisance, without necessarily requiring expert testimony on causation.
Facts:
- North Alabama Sand & Gravel, LLC ('Alliance') and Austin Powder Company began conducting blasting operations at a quarry in 2004 and 2005, respectively.
- Roland and Sandra Crouch owned a home less than one mile from the quarry, which they stated was in excellent condition before the blasting commenced.
- After blasting began, the Crouches experienced intense vibrations, which Mr. Crouch described as feeling like an earthquake that 'about shook [his] house off the mountain.'
- Subsequent to the start of the blasting, the Crouches observed extensive damage to their property, including fallen drywall, broken windows, buckled floors, a dislodged chandelier, and cracks in the walls and porches.
- Mr. Crouch complained to Alliance representatives approximately 20 to 30 times about the damage the blasting was causing.
- Mr. Crouch met with Alliance's plant manager, showed him pictures of the damage, and brought him to the house to observe it; Mr. Crouch testified the manager opined that the blasting caused the damage and suggested consulting an attorney.
Procedural Posture:
- Roland and Sandra Crouch sued North Alabama Sand & Gravel, LLC and Austin Powder Company in an Alabama trial court.
- The Crouches' complaint asserted claims for negligence, wantonness, trespass, nuisance, and abnormally dangerous activity.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims against the Crouches.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court certified its judgment as final under Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., making it appealable.
- The Crouches, as appellants, appealed the summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Alabama.
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 a plaintiff's lay testimony describing property damage and severe vibrations from nearby blasting operations create a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat a defendant's motion for summary judgment on claims of abnormally dangerous activity, wantonness, and nuisance?
Opinions:
Majority - Bolin, Justice
Yes. A plaintiff's lay testimony about severe vibrations and resulting property damage is sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact, thereby defeating summary judgment on claims of abnormally dangerous activity, wantonness, and nuisance. For the abnormally dangerous activity claim, the court held that under the precedent of Harper v. Regency Development Co., the determination of whether blasting constitutes an abnormally dangerous activity and whether it proximately caused the damage are questions of fact for the jury. Expert testimony is not always required, and the Crouches' testimony about the vibrations and observed damage was sufficient to proceed. Regarding the wantonness claim, the court found substantial evidence that Alliance was aware of the Crouches' numerous complaints, observed the damage, yet continued its blasting operations, which constitutes a conscious disregard for the Crouches' rights sufficient for a jury to consider. The nuisance claim also survives because conduct giving rise to an abnormally dangerous activity claim can also constitute a nuisance by substantially and unreasonably interfering with the use and enjoyment of property. However, the court affirmed summary judgment on the trespass claim, reasoning that Alabama law does not recognize mere concussions or vibrations from blasting as a physical trespass; an actual physical invasion by a substance like rock or debris is required.
Concurring - Murdock, Justice
Justice Murdock concurred with the majority's ultimate decision (the result) on all claims but did not join the reasoning for Part III.A., which concerned the abnormally dangerous activity claim.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the lowered evidentiary burden for plaintiffs in Alabama blasting cases established in Harper v. Regency Development Co.. It clarifies that compelling lay testimony describing the cause and effect of blasting can be sufficient to overcome a defendant's expert testimony and survive summary judgment. The ruling empowers property owners by ensuring that their claims are not prematurely dismissed solely because they lack expert witnesses, thus allowing juries to weigh the credibility of lay observations against scientific evidence. This precedent makes it more difficult for operators of inherently dangerous activities to dispose of lawsuits early in litigation based on a 'battle of the experts.'
