West Morgan-East Lawrence Water & Sewer Authority v. 3M Co.
208 F. Supp. 3d 1227, 2016 WL 6584932, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186030 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Alabama law, an indirect trespass claim requires a showing of substantial physical damage to the property itself (the res), not merely a diminution in the property's use or value due to contamination.
Facts:
- 3M Company, Dyneon, L.L.C., and Daikin America, Inc. operated manufacturing facilities in Decatur, Alabama.
- These facilities discharged wastewaters containing perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) into the Tennessee River.
- The West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority (the 'Authority') drew water from the Tennessee River 13 miles downstream from where the defendants discharged the chemicals.
- Although the Authority treated the water, unsafe levels of PFOA and PFOS, which are resistant to breakdown, remained in the drinking water it supplied to consumers.
- Tommy Lindsey, Lanette Lindsey, Larry Watkins, and other consumers ('Representative Plaintiffs') ingested this water.
- Scientific studies have linked PFOA and PFOS absorption to various long-term health problems, including an increased risk of cancer.
- Tests showed elevated levels of PFOA and PFOS in the Authority's treated water and in the blood serum of its customers.
- As a result, the Authority incurred costs for testing and finding new water sources, while the Representative Plaintiffs incurred costs for bottled water and water filters and alleged diminution in their property values.
Procedural Posture:
- The West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority and several individual plaintiffs (Representative Plaintiffs) filed a class action lawsuit against 3M Company, Dyneon, L.L.C., and Daikin America, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
- Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting common law claims for negligence, nuisance, trespass, battery, and wantonness.
- Defendants 3M and Dyneon filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
- Defendant Daikin America initially filed its own motion to dismiss but later withdrew it, though its arguments were incorporated by reference into the 3M/Dyneon motion.
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 contamination of a property's water supply, without allegations of physical or structural damage to the property itself, constitute 'substantial damages to the res' sufficient to support an indirect trespass claim under Alabama law?
Opinions:
Majority - Kallon, J.
No. The contamination of a property's water supply, without physical damage to the property itself, does not constitute the 'substantial damages to the res' required to sustain a claim for indirect trespass. The court distinguished between damage to the property's physical substance (the 'res'), which is required for trespass, and diminution in its use or value, which sounds in nuisance. Plaintiffs alleged their property value was diminished and their use was impaired, but did not allege any physical damage, such as corroded pipes or damaged land. Therefore, the trespass claim fails. However, the court allowed other claims to proceed: 1) Public Nuisance, because contaminating a public waterway affects the public and plaintiffs alleged special damages different from the general public; 2) Battery, because actual physical injury is not an element, and defendants' intent and plaintiffs' consent are factual questions for a later stage; and 3) Wantonness, because plaintiffs alleged sufficient economic and property damages (apart from unripe personal injury claims) and facts suggesting defendants consciously disregarded a known, probable risk of injury by discharging toxic chemicals into a drinking water source. The negligence claim for personal injury was dismissed as not ripe because Alabama law requires a manifest, present injury, not just exposure and fear of future illness.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the distinct boundaries between trespass and nuisance in the context of environmental contamination under Alabama law. It establishes a high bar for indirect trespass claims, requiring plaintiffs to plead and prove actual, physical damage to their property, not just the presence of a contaminant that impairs use or lowers value. This decision channels contamination cases that lack tangible property damage toward nuisance law. Furthermore, it reinforces Alabama's strict 'manifest, present injury' rule for toxic torts, precluding recovery for negligence based solely on exposure and the increased risk of future disease.
