XI Properties, Inc. v. RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc.
2004 Tenn. LEXIS 1110, 151 S.W.3d 443 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner's duty to provide lateral support to adjoining land extends only to the land in its natural state. There is no duty to provide support for artificial additions or alterations, such as fill dirt, that have been made to the adjoining property.
Facts:
- RaceTrac Petroleum owned a parcel of land and constructed a gas station and parking lot on it.
- To build the parking lot, RaceTrac added fill dirt to level the area and created a sloped embankment to support the sides of the lot.
- In 1993, RaceTrac sold an adjacent 3.221-acre parcel to the plaintiffs.
- Due to a mistake in the deed, the sale inadvertently included the sloped embankment that was supporting RaceTrac's parking lot.
- In 1999, the plaintiffs discovered the boundary discrepancy while preparing to develop their property.
- The plaintiffs' development plans required the removal of a portion of the sloped embankment supporting RaceTrac's parking lot.
- The plaintiffs informed RaceTrac of their plans, and RaceTrac objected, leading to the legal dispute.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs filed a declaratory judgment action in the trial court against RaceTrac Petroleum to clarify the parties' rights and responsibilities.
- Both parties filed motions for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, ruling that they owed no duty to provide lateral support to the altered portion of RaceTrac's land.
- RaceTrac Petroleum, as appellant, appealed the decision to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment but added that the plaintiffs, as appellees, could not excavate negligently.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court granted RaceTrac Petroleum's application for permission to appeal.
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 landowner have a duty to provide lateral support to adjoining land that has been altered from its natural state through the addition of artificial fill?
Opinions:
Majority - Barker, J.
No, a landowner does not have a duty to provide lateral support to adjoining land that has been altered from its natural state. The court adopted the traditional common law rule that the absolute duty of lateral support applies only to land in its natural, unaltered condition. When a landowner removes soil, they are strictly liable for any damage caused to adjoining land in its natural state that subsides under its own weight. However, this duty does not extend to supporting artificial additions or alterations, such as the fill dirt used by RaceTrac to create its parking lot. The court reasoned that the 'natural state' of land is its condition before any human activity, rejecting the argument that it should be the condition at the time of sale. While the plaintiffs have no duty to support the artificial fill, they must still exercise reasonable care when excavating to avoid unnecessary and foreseeable damage to RaceTrac's improved property.
Analysis:
This case formally establishes in Tennessee the common law distinction between the duties owed to adjoining land in its natural versus altered states. By adopting the majority rule, the Tennessee Supreme Court provides clear guidance for developers and property owners, placing the burden of supporting artificial alterations on the party who made them. The decision reinforces the principle that a landowner cannot, by altering their own land, impose a new servitude or restriction upon their neighbor's property. This clarification is significant for future property disputes involving excavation, as it distinguishes the strict liability standard for natural land from the negligence standard applicable to land with artificial improvements.
