Mangini v. Aerojet-General Corp.
230 Cal. App. 3d 1125, 91 Daily Journal DAR 6544, 281 Cal. Rptr. 827 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Hazardous waste contamination left by a former tenant can constitute a continuing nuisance and trespass if the contamination is abatable, allowing a subsequent owner to sue for damages incurred within the statutory period before filing the lawsuit.
Facts:
- From 1960 to 1970, Aerojet-General Corporation leased 2,400 acres of land from its former owners, the Cavitts.
- The lease agreement required Aerojet to surrender the premises at the end of the term in 'as good state and condition as when received,' with exceptions for reasonable use and wear.
- During its ten-year lease, Aerojet burned, buried, and otherwise disposed of millions of pounds of waste rocket fuel materials and other hazardous substances on the property.
- In 1975, Catherine Holthouse Mangini and Mark Vernon Holthouse acquired the property from the Cavitts' estate.
- After the Manginis acquired the property, the hazardous conditions created by Aerojet remained.
- The Sacramento County Air Pollution Control District eventually compelled the Manginis to undertake testing of the property due to the contamination.
Procedural Posture:
- Catherine Holthouse Mangini and Mark Vernon Holthouse filed a multicount complaint against Aerojet-General Corporation in California Superior Court.
- Aerojet filed a demurrer to the entire complaint, arguing that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and that all claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.
- A judgment of dismissal was entered in favor of Aerojet.
- The Manginis, as appellants, appealed the judgment of dismissal to the California Court of Appeal, Third District.
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 the presence of abatable hazardous waste left on a property by a former lessee constitute a continuing nuisance or trespass for which a subsequent property owner can sue, even though the polluting acts occurred decades before the lawsuit was filed?
Opinions:
Majority - Sims, J.
Yes, the presence of abatable hazardous waste can constitute a continuing nuisance and trespass, allowing a subsequent owner's lawsuit to proceed despite the time elapsed since the original polluting acts. The court reasoned that under California's broad statutory definition, a nuisance need not originate from neighboring land but can exist on the plaintiff's own property. A former lessee who created the condition can be held liable. The key issue for the statute of limitations is whether the nuisance is permanent or continuing. A permanent nuisance, for which the statute of limitations runs from its creation, involves a single, unchangeable act or structure. In contrast, a continuing nuisance is one that is abatable; because the injury is ongoing, a new cause of action accrues each day, and a plaintiff may recover for damages sustained within the three-year period before filing suit. Since the plaintiffs allege the chemical contamination can be cleaned up (is abatable), they have pleaded a continuing nuisance and trespass, and their claims should not have been dismissed on demurrer. However, the court found their claims for negligence and strict liability were time-barred because the plaintiffs were put on inquiry notice of the potential contamination more than three years before filing their complaint, triggering the discovery rule for those specific torts.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the application of the continuing nuisance doctrine to environmental contamination cases under California law. It establishes that as long as contamination is remediable, it may be treated as a continuing tort, thereby preventing the statute of limitations from barring claims against historic polluters. This gives current landowners a powerful tool to hold former tenants or owners accountable for pollution that occurred decades earlier. The ruling also highlights a crucial distinction for litigation strategy: while the discovery rule may bar claims like negligence once a party is on inquiry notice, the continuing nuisance theory allows claims for ongoing, abatable harm to survive independently.
