Leo v. General Electric Co.
1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2755, 145 A.D.2d 291, 538 N.Y.S.2d 844 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Commercial fishermen who suffer a loss of livelihood due to pollution of public waters have standing to sue for public nuisance because their pecuniary injury constitutes a special damage distinct from that suffered by the general public.
Facts:
- Over a 30-year period, the defendant discharged at least 500,000 pounds of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from its manufacturing plants into the Hudson River.
- The PCBs contaminated the river's marine life, including the striped bass population.
- The individual plaintiffs are commercial fishermen who earned their livelihood by catching and selling fish, including striped bass, from the Hudson River and Long Island waters.
- In 1985, due to dangerously high levels of PCBs in the fish, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) banned the sale of striped bass from the affected waters.
- In 1986, the DEC expanded the ban to prohibit all commercial and recreational fishing of striped bass throughout New York State.
- This ban directly resulted in the plaintiffs' loss of livelihood, as striped bass sales had constituted a substantial part of their income.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs, commercial fishermen and their associations, filed a lawsuit against the defendant in the New York Supreme Court, which is the state's trial court of first instance.
- The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, arguing they lacked standing to sue and that their claims were preempted by federal law.
- The Supreme Court (trial court) denied the defendant's motion to dismiss.
- The defendant, as appellant, appealed the trial court's denial to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, with the plaintiffs as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do commercial fishermen, who suffer a loss of livelihood due to a government-imposed ban on fishing caused by a defendant's pollution of public waters, suffer a special damage distinct from the public at large, thereby granting them standing to sue for public nuisance?
Opinions:
Majority - Harwood, J.
Yes, commercial fishermen who suffer a loss of livelihood due to a ban on fishing caused by pollution suffer a special damage distinct from the public at large, granting them standing to sue for public nuisance. The court reasoned that while pollution of public waters is a public nuisance affecting the entire community, the plaintiffs' injury is different in kind from the general inconvenience to the public. The 'diminution or loss of livelihood is not suffered by every person who fishes in the Hudson River' and is a pecuniary injury peculiar to the plaintiffs in their capacity as commercial fishermen. This special damage distinguishes their harm from that of the general public, which might only lose a recreational opportunity. The court aligned its reasoning with precedents from other state and federal courts and also held that the fishermen's associations had standing and that federal environmental laws did not preempt their state common law nuisance claim.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'special damage' exception to the general rule that only public authorities can sue for a public nuisance in New York. It establishes a clear precedent that direct economic loss of livelihood for those who commercially depend on a public resource constitutes a 'peculiar injury' distinct from the harm to the general public. This ruling empowers commercial actors, such as fishermen or others whose businesses rely on natural resources, to seek private remedies against polluters for economic damages. It clarifies that the scale of a public tragedy does not prevent individuals who are uniquely and financially harmed from having their day in court.
