Lydia Harrison Ryan, Cross-Appellants v. Southern Natural Gas Company, Cross-Appellee
879 F. 2d 162 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a servitude is established by contract, the specific terms of the written agreement regulate the extent and mode of its use, overriding any general statutory duties of care or strict liability that would otherwise apply.
Facts:
- In 1956, Southern Natural Gas Company (SNG) entered into a written servitude agreement with the ancestors of the Harrisons to construct a pipeline canal on their land.
- The agreement specified that for a portion of the land known as the 'southern strip,' SNG had the option to leave the canal open and would not be required to backfill it.
- SNG constructed the pipeline canal in 1956 and, in accordance with the agreement, did not dam or backfill the portion on the southern strip, leaving it open.
- Over the following decades, the open canal allowed tidal flow, which caused erosion, widened the canal beyond its original right-of-way, and resulted in saltwater damage to the surrounding marshland.
- In 1978, the Harrisons formally complained to SNG about the ongoing erosion and marsh damage, requesting that SNG dam or plug the canal to prevent further harm.
- SNG refused the Harrisons' request to dam the canal.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1986, the Harrisons filed suit against SNG in federal district court, asserting claims for damages under negligence, strict liability, and breach of contract theories.
- The district court found that the Harrisons' breach of contract claim had prescribed (was barred by the statute of limitations).
- Following a trial, the district court found SNG liable on a negligence theory for failing to dam the canal and causing erosion and marsh loss.
- The district court awarded damages to the Harrisons for the lost land and the cost to stabilize the surrounding marsh.
- SNG (appellant) appealed the adverse judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Harrisons (appellees) filed a cross-appeal, arguing the district court erred by not finding SNG strictly liable.
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 servitude owner have a duty under general negligence or strict liability principles to dam a canal to prevent damage to the servient estate when the written servitude agreement explicitly gives the owner the option to leave the canal open?
Opinions:
Majority - W. Eugene Davis, Circuit Judge
No. A servitude owner does not have a duty to take actions to prevent damage when the written servitude agreement explicitly absolves the owner of that specific duty. The court reasoned that a written agreement is the law between the parties and must be enforced according to its terms. The servitude agreement plainly gave SNG the option to leave the canal 'open,' which relieved it of any obligation to dam it. While Louisiana Civil Code articles (such as 745 and 667) impose general duties on property owners to avoid unreasonable damage, these are default rules that apply only in the absence of a specific agreement to the contrary. The court found that parties are free to contractually alter or dispense with these statutory duties. An internal SNG memo, which showed the company was surprised it was not required to build dams, was interpreted as evidence that this specific issue was negotiated and that SNG had successfully contracted out of that responsibility.
Analysis:
This decision strongly affirms the principle of freedom of contract within the context of Louisiana property law, specifically regarding servitudes. It establishes that clear, explicit terms in a servitude agreement will trump general, codal duties of care and strict liability. The ruling clarifies that statutory obligations are default provisions that can be, and in this case were, contracted around by the parties. This precedent forces landowners to be acutely aware of the specific rights they are granting in servitude agreements, as they may be waiving recourse for future damages that would otherwise be compensable under general tort law.
