Neuse River Foundation, Inc. et al. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc. et al.
574 S.E.2d 48 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under North Carolina law, a private party lacks standing to sue for a public nuisance unless they have suffered a special, particularized injury distinct from the public's. Even if such an injury exists, the party may only seek individualized remedies for that specific harm, not broad public relief such as environmental remediation funds or injunctions against legislatively authorized activities.
Facts:
- Defendants, several large-scale hog farming companies, operate pork production facilities in North Carolina.
- As part of their operations, defendants manage hog waste by flushing it into open-air earthen pits, referred to as 'lagoons.'
- Plaintiffs, a group consisting of river associations, river monitors, riparian landowners, and commercial fishermen, allege that defendants' waste management practices have caused massive pollution and contamination of the Neuse, New, and Cape Fear Rivers.
- The plaintiffs did not request any monetary compensation for their own specific, individual property damage or business losses.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs, a coalition of various individuals and organizations, filed two similar lawsuits against the defendant hog farming companies in a North Carolina trial court.
- The two actions were consolidated for hearing at the trial level.
- Defendants filed motions to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing all claims on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue.
- Plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the trial court's dismissal to this 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:
Do private citizens and organizations have standing to seek public remedies, such as a large-scale environmental remediation fund and an injunction against a legislatively-authorized practice, for alleged pollution of public waterways, when they do not seek compensation for their own individual injuries?
Opinions:
Majority - Thomas, J.
No, private citizens and organizations lack standing to seek purely public remedies for pollution of public waterways. To sue for a public nuisance, North Carolina law requires a plaintiff to have suffered a 'special damage'—an invasion of a particular personal right, such as to property or a business, that is not merged in the general public right. While some plaintiffs, like the riparian landowners and commercial fishermen, could potentially show such special damage, they failed to seek individualized recovery for it. A plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each form of relief sought. The request for an injunction against the use of lagoons fails because the practice is expressly authorized by the state legislature, and enjoining it would violate the separation of powers doctrine. The request for a public remediation trust fund fails because under the public trust doctrine, only the state, through the Attorney General, is authorized to bring actions to protect public waters and seek such broad, public remedies.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the distinction between public and private rights in North Carolina environmental law, reinforcing the state's exclusive authority to vindicate public interests. It establishes that even plaintiffs with a potentially valid, particularized injury cannot act as 'private attorneys general' to sue for remedies that benefit the public at large. The ruling strongly affirms the separation of powers by deferring to legislative authorization of industrial practices and narrows the path for private environmental litigation, requiring plaintiffs to focus strictly on recovering for their own discrete, individual harms rather than seeking systemic change through the courts.
Unlock the full brief for Neuse River Foundation, Inc. et al. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc. et al.