Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantdamagestrial
contractdefendant

Related Cases

Skousen v. Nidy, 90 Ariz. 215, 367 P.2d 248
View Case »
Johnson v. Sampson, 167 Minn. 203, 208 N.W. 814, 46 A.L.R. 772
View Case »
Tolin v. Terrell, 133 Ky. 210, 117 S.W. 290
View Case »
Pittsburg Reduction Co. v. Horton, 87 Ark. 576, 113 S.W. 647, 18 L.R.A.N.S. 905
View Case »
Bunten v. Davis, 82 N.H. 304, 133 A. 16, 45 A.L.R. 1409
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Aruba Petroleum, Inc. v. Parr, Not Reported in S.W. Rptr., 2017 WL 462340

Facts

Bob Parr owns forty acres of land in Wise County, Texas, where he and his family live. They sued Aruba Petroleum and other companies for environmental contamination and nuisance caused by spills, emissions, and discharges from Aruba's natural gas operations. The jury found Aruba liable for creating a private nuisance, awarding the Parrs significant damages. However, Aruba contended that the evidence did not support the jury's finding of intent.

Bob Parr owns forty acres of land in Wise County, Texas located atop the Barnett Shale—an area that experienced an increase in natural gas drilling and production activity after 2000. He and Lisa Parr and Lisa's daughter E.D. live on the property. They sued Aruba and other natural gas extraction and service companies and well site operators for causing “environmental contamination and polluting events” on their property.

Issue

Did Aruba Petroleum, Inc. intentionally create a private nuisance that substantially interfered with the Parrs' use and enjoyment of their property?

Did Aruba Petroleum, Inc. intentionally create a private nuisance that substantially interfered with the Parrs' use and enjoyment of their property?

Rule

To establish intentional nuisance, the evidence must show that the defendant intentionally caused the interference that constitutes the nuisance, not just that the defendant intentionally engaged in the conduct that caused the interference.

To prove an intentional nuisance, the evidence must establish that the defendant intentionally caused the interference that constitutes the nuisance, not just that the defendant intentionally engaged in the conduct that caused the interference.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether the evidence presented by the Parrs demonstrated that Aruba knew or believed its actions would result in interference with the Parrs' property. While the Parrs provided evidence of complaints made to Aruba and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the court found that there was no specific evidence that Aruba knew these complaints were about the Parrs' property or that it intended to cause harm.

Although there is evidence that Lisa Parr spoke by phone with someone at Aruba's business office to ask about drilling activities in the Decatur and Allison area, spoke by phone with Aruba's public relations firm, and spoke with individuals who she said were either Aruba's employees or contractors at or near well sites, and there is evidence that the Parrs submitted complaints to the TCEQ concerning Aruba's operations, the Parrs have not cited any evidence that Aruba knew who placed these calls and made these complaints or that they were specific to the Parrs or their property.

Conclusion

The court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a take-nothing judgment in favor of Aruba, concluding that there was no legally sufficient evidence that Aruba intentionally created a nuisance.

Consequently, we conclude that, on review of the record in this case, there is no legally sufficient evidence that Aruba intentionally created or maintained a condition that substantially interfered with the Parrs' use and enjoyment of their land.

Who won?

Aruba Petroleum, Inc. prevailed in the case because the court found no legally sufficient evidence of intent to support the jury's finding of intentional nuisance.

Aruba Petroleum, Inc. prevailed in the case because the court found no legally sufficient evidence of intent to support the jury's finding of intentional nuisance.

You must be