Kennedy v. General Geophysical Co.
1948 Tex. App. LEXIS 1443, 213 S.W.2d 707 (1948)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Conducting geophysical exploration on adjacent land that sends vibrations through a plaintiff's property does not constitute a legally actionable trespass unless the plaintiff can prove either negligence in the operation or that the vibrations caused actual physical damage to their property.
Facts:
- C. W. Kennedy, Jr. was the owner of a 339-acre tract of land in Houston County, Texas.
- Skelly Oil Company hired General Geophysical Company to conduct seismic exploration for oil and gas in the vicinity of Kennedy's land.
- The exploration involved detonating dynamite in 'shot-holes' and using seismometers to record the resulting vibrations to map subsurface geology.
- An agent of General Geophysical Company requested Kennedy's permission to conduct operations on his land, but Kennedy refused unless he was compensated.
- General Geophysical proceeded with its operations on a public road adjacent to Kennedy's property, without ever physically entering his land.
- The company set off explosions, one of which was as close as 10-15 feet from Kennedy's property line, which sent vibrations through his land.
- Kennedy's property did not sustain any physical damage as a result of the vibrations from the explosions.
Procedural Posture:
- C. W. Kennedy, Jr. (plaintiff) sued General Geophysical Company and Skelly Oil Company (defendants) in a Texas trial court, seeking actual and exemplary damages for trespass.
- The case was tried before the court without a jury.
- The trial court found in favor of the defendants, General Geophysical and Skelly Oil, and rendered a judgment that Kennedy take nothing by his suit.
- Kennedy, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals of Texas (the intermediate appellate court).
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 conducting geophysical exploration on adjacent land, which sends vibrations through a plaintiff's property without physical entry onto the surface or causing physical damage, constitute a legally actionable trespass for which damages can be recovered?
Opinions:
Majority - Monteith, Chief Justice
No. Conducting geophysical exploration on adjacent land that sends vibrations through a plaintiff's property without physical entry or damage is not an actionable trespass. The court reasoned that liability for consequential injuries from vibrations or concussions, unlike direct physical invasions by debris, requires proof of negligence or actual physical damage, neither of which was established by Kennedy. The court distinguished between trespass by throwing objects onto land and 'mere vibrations,' which do not constitute a trespass per se. Furthermore, Kennedy failed to meet his burden of proving that the companies had obtained valuable geological information about his land, as the court refused to take judicial notice of scientific principles of geology, which are not matters of common knowledge. Because Kennedy proved neither a trespass nor any physical or informational injury, he was not entitled to actual or exemplary damages.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the boundary of trespass law in the context of subsurface exploration technologies. It establishes that intangible intrusions like vibrations are not treated as a trespass per se, unlike a physical entry of a person or object. The decision places a higher burden on landowners, requiring them to prove either negligence or actual physical damage to recover for injuries caused by concussive forces from adjacent properties. This ruling protects lawful industrial activities like seismic testing from automatic liability for trespass, balancing property rights against the need for resource exploration, and requiring a showing of tangible harm or fault for a claim to succeed.
