Schwartzman, Inc. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.

United States District Court, D. New Mexico
857 F.Supp. 838 (1994)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A claim for negligence per se cannot be based on the violation of a state environmental statute if the statute establishes a comprehensive public enforcement scheme but does not provide for a private cause of action for damages, as this would improperly create a remedy not intended by the legislature.

Facts:

From 1908 to 1972, Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. (ATSF) operated a wood treatment and preservation facility.
Plaintiff owns land adjacent to ATSF's facility.
ATSF allegedly stored and disposed of chemical waste improperly during its operations.
These chemicals contaminated the groundwater, which allegedly migrated and rendered Plaintiff's adjacent property unmarketable.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed listing the ATSF site on the National Priorities List due to a high hazard ranking score.
The EPA and ATSF began negotiating an administrative order for a remedial investigation and feasibility study to assess and clean up the site.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiff filed a multi-count complaint against Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. (ATSF) on February 15, 1993.
The case was removed from state court to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.
ATSF filed motions for summary judgment, seeking dismissal or partial dismissal of Plaintiff's claims, including public nuisance, negligence per se, trespass, and private nuisance.

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 defendant's alleged violation of state environmental statutes, which provide for a comprehensive public enforcement regime but do not include a private right of action for damages, support a private plaintiff's claim for negligence per se?

Opinions:

Majority - Burciaga, Chief Judge

No. A claim for negligence per se cannot be predicated on the violation of state environmental statutes that do not expressly or implicitly authorize a private cause of action for damages. The New Mexico Hazardous Waste Act and the Water Quality Act establish a comprehensive remedial scheme enforced by a state agency, which can seek injunctive relief and civil penalties payable to a state fund. The legislature's choice to include specific public remedies while omitting a private right to sue for monetary damages indicates a deliberate intent to preclude such actions. Allowing a negligence per se claim would circumvent this legislative intent by 'engrafting an additional remedy the legislature did not provide.' Such a claim is functionally equivalent to an implied private right of action, and courts should not create remedies where the legislature has enacted an integrated and exclusive system of enforcement. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot use alleged violations of these statutes as a basis for a negligence per se claim.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the principle that courts are hesitant to imply a private right of action from a comprehensive regulatory statute that specifies its own, distinct enforcement mechanisms. It highlights the judiciary's deference to legislative intent, particularly where a legislative body has created a detailed public enforcement scheme. For environmental law, this case establishes that plaintiffs in jurisdictions with similar statutes may be limited to common law torts, such as nuisance and trespass, rather than relying on statutory violations to establish negligence as a matter of law. This holding channels environmental remediation disputes through the designated administrative agencies, preventing private litigation from interfering with or creating remedies inconsistent with the statutory framework.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Schwartzman, Inc. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. (1994)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature