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

defendantdamagesliabilitystatuteappealtrialcompliance
plaintiffdefendantdamagesliabilitystatutetrialcomplianceappellantrestitution

Related Cases

MacPherson v. Department of Administrative Services, 340 Or. 117, 130 P.3d 308
View Case »
Martin v. Reynolds Metals Co., 221 Or. 86, 342 P.2d 790
View Case »
Metcalf v. Daley, 214 F.3d 1135, 51 ERC 1429, 30 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,637, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4542, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6107
View Case »
American Paper Institute, Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A., 890 F.2d 869, 30 ERC 1313, 30 ERC 1714, 20 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,482, 19 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,361
View Case »
Geer v. State of Conn., 161 U.S. 519, 16 S.Ct. 600, 40 L.Ed. 793
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Borland v. Sanders Lead Co., Inc., 369 So.2d 523, 12 ERC 2017, 2 A.L.R.4th 1042, 15 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,934

Facts

J. H. Borland, Sr., and Sarah M. Borland own approximately 159 acres of agricultural land in Pike County, Alabama, where they raise cattle and grow crops. Sanders Lead Company operates a lead smelting plant nearby, which has allegedly caused damage to the Borlands' property through the emission of lead particulates and sulfoxide gases. The Borlands claim that the smelting process has resulted in a dangerous accumulation of these pollutants on their land, leading to a decline in its agricultural viability.

J. H. Borland, Sr., and Sarah M. Borland, Appellants, own approximately 159 acres of land, located just south of Troy, Alabama, on Henderson Road. On this property, Appellants raise cattle, grow several different crops, and have a large pecan orchard.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred in ruling that the Borlands could not recover damages for pollution of their property due to the lead company's compliance with the Alabama Air Pollution Control Act and the increased value of their property as commercial land.

The Supreme Court, Jones, J., held that: (1) compliance with Alabama Air Pollution Control Act did not shield defendant from liability for damages caused by pollutants emitted from its smelter; (2) fact that because of its proximity to the lead plant plaintiffs' property had a higher value as commercial property than as residential or farm property did not bar recovery.

Rule

The court held that compliance with the Alabama Air Pollution Control Act does not shield a defendant from liability for damages caused by pollutants. Additionally, the law distinguishes between trespass, which protects exclusive possession, and nuisance, which protects use and enjoyment.

The Alabama Air Pollution Control Act is codified at s 22-28-1, Et seq., Alabama Code 1975 . s 22-28-23, Alabama Code 1975 , specifically provides: (N)othing in this section shall be construed to limit or abrogate any private remedies now available to any person for the alleviation, abatement, control, correction or prevention of air pollution Or restitution for damage resulting therefrom.

Analysis

The Supreme Court of Alabama found that the trial court misapplied the law by concluding that compliance with the air pollution statute provided immunity from liability. The court clarified that the Borlands' claim involved a substantial invasion of their property rights due to the lead emissions, which constituted a trespass. The court emphasized that the increase in property value due to proximity to the lead plant does not negate the Borlands' right to seek damages for the pollution.

It is apparent from a further reading of the final decree that the trial Court was under the mistaken impression that compliance with the Alabama Air Pollution Control Act shielded the Defendant from liability for damages caused by pollutants emitting from its smelter. This is not the law in this State.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, allowing the Borlands to pursue their claims for damages caused by the lead company's emissions.

Reversed and remanded.

Who won?

The Borlands prevailed in the appeal as the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, allowing them to seek damages for the pollution of their property.

The Supreme Court of Alabama found that the trial court misapplied the law by concluding that compliance with the air pollution statute provided immunity from liability.

You must be