West Morgan-East Lawrence Water & Sewer Authority v. 3M Co.
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186030, 2016 WL 6584932, 208 F. Supp. 3d 1227 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Alabama law, a claim for personal injury due to toxic chemical exposure is not ripe until the plaintiff suffers a manifest, present illness. However, claims for battery based on unwanted chemical contact, public nuisance based on special damages, and property-related damages like economic loss and diminution in value may proceed even without a present physical illness.
Facts:
- 3M Company and its subsidiary Dyneon own and operate manufacturing facilities in Decatur, Alabama, that release wastewaters containing perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) into ground and surface water.
- This wastewater ultimately discharges into the Tennessee River.
- West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority (the 'Authority') draws water from the Tennessee River approximately thirteen miles downstream from the defendants' discharge points.
- Although the Authority treats the water, unsafe levels of PFOA and PFOS, exceeding EPA Health Advisory Levels, remain in the drinking water supplied to consumers.
- Tommy Lindsey, Lanette Lindsey, and Larry Watkins ('Representative Plaintiffs') are property owners who consume water supplied by the Authority.
- Studies, including blood serum analysis of some Representative Plaintiffs and class members, confirmed an association between drinking the Authority's water and having elevated levels of PFOA and PFOS in their bodies.
- The chemicals are known to be toxic and linked to serious health problems, but the Representative Plaintiffs have not alleged that they currently suffer from any specific disease caused by the exposure.
- As a result of the contamination, the Authority has incurred costs for water testing and seeking new water sources, while the Representative Plaintiffs have incurred costs for bottled water and water filters and suffered diminution in their property values.
Procedural Posture:
- The West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority and individual representative plaintiffs sued 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 alleging six common law counts: negligence, nuisance, abatement of 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 also filed a motion to dismiss but subsequently withdrew it.
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 claims for personal and property damages arising from the discharge of toxic chemicals into a public water supply state a valid cause of action under various Alabama common law tort theories when the individual plaintiffs have been exposed and have elevated chemical levels in their blood but have not yet developed a manifest physical illness?
Opinions:
Majority - Kallon, J.
No, in part, and Yes, in part. Claims for personal injuries based on negligence are not yet ripe, but claims for property damage, public nuisance, battery, and wantonness may proceed. Under Alabama law, a tort claim for personal injury requires a 'manifest, present injury,' and the plaintiffs' allegations of elevated chemical levels in their blood and fear of future disease do not meet this standard. Therefore, the negligence and wantonness claims related to personal injury are dismissed as not ripe. Similarly, the trespass claim fails because plaintiffs did not allege 'substantial damages to the res' (i.e., physical damage to the property itself), only diminution in its use value, which is an injury addressed by nuisance law. However, several claims survive. The negligence and wantonness claims for property damage (e.g., cost of bottled water, reduced property value) are cognizable injuries. The public nuisance claim survives because polluting a public waterway is a public nuisance, and the plaintiffs alleged 'special damage' (economic costs) different from the harm to the general public. Finally, the battery claim may proceed because Alabama law does not require a physical injury for battery, and the defendants acted with 'substantial certainty' that their discharged chemicals would result in an offensive contact with consumers who ingested the water.
Analysis:
This decision illustrates the significant hurdles toxic tort plaintiffs face in states requiring a 'manifest, present injury.' It effectively bars recovery for exposure-only claims and medical monitoring under negligence, forcing plaintiffs to wait until they are physically ill to sue for personal injury. However, the ruling also demonstrates the adaptability of traditional torts to environmental contamination cases. By allowing claims for battery (based on ingestion of chemicals as an offensive contact) and public nuisance (based on economic harm) to proceed, the court provides alternative legal avenues for plaintiffs to seek redress for harms other than physical illness, such as economic losses and the invasion of bodily integrity.
