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

plaintiffdefendantdamagesnegligenceliabilitytrialmotionsummary judgmentleasecomparative negligencecommon lawmotion for summary judgment
plaintiffdefendantliabilitytrialmotionsummary judgmentleasemotion for summary judgment

Related Cases

Clohessy v. Bachelor, 237 Conn. 31, 675 A.2d 852
View Case »
Atlantic Coast Airlines v. Cook, 857 N.E.2d 989
View Case »
Streifel v. Bulkley, 195 Conn.App. 294, 224 A.3d 539
View Case »
Fitzgerald v. Valdez, 77 N.M. 769, 427 P.2d 655, 1967 -NMSC- 088
View Case »
Maltman v. Sauer, 84 Wash.2d 975, 530 P.2d 254
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

City of Portland v. Boeing Co., 179 F.Supp.2d 1190, 52 ERC 1977

Facts

The City of Portland operates a well field in East Multnomah County, which was affected by groundwater contamination from industrial activities conducted by Boeing and Cascade. In the mid-1980s, contamination was discovered near the wells, leading the city to incur substantial costs to respond to the contamination threat, even though the wells themselves were not contaminated. The city sought to recover these costs and claimed that the defendants' actions constituted a public nuisance.

The City of Portland operates a well field in East Multnomah County, which was affected by groundwater contamination from industrial activities conducted by Boeing and Cascade.

Issue

Whether the City of Portland could pursue claims against Boeing and Cascade for public nuisance and cost recovery under CERCLA and state law, and whether the action was timely.

Whether the City of Portland could pursue claims against Boeing and Cascade for public nuisance and cost recovery under CERCLA and state law, and whether the action was timely.

Rule

Under CERCLA, a plaintiff must show that the defendant is a responsible party, the site is a facility, a release of hazardous substances has occurred, and the plaintiff incurred necessary response costs. Additionally, public nuisance claims can be pursued if the plaintiff suffers a special injury distinct from the general public.

Under CERCLA, a plaintiff must show that the defendant is a responsible party, the site is a facility, a release of hazardous substances has occurred, and the plaintiff incurred necessary response costs.

Analysis

The court found that the city had established a prima facie case for recovery of response costs under CERCLA, as it incurred costs in response to the contamination threat. The court also determined that the city could pursue a common law public nuisance claim based on the defendants' actions, which were deemed hazardous. The defendants' arguments regarding comparative negligence and the 'coming to the nuisance' defense were rejected, as they did not apply in this context.

The court found that the city had established a prima facie case for recovery of response costs under CERCLA, as it incurred costs in response to the contamination threat.

Conclusion

The court granted the city's motion for summary judgment on the issue of the defendants' liability for the public nuisance claim and for cost recovery under CERCLA. The amount of damages was to be determined by a factfinder.

The court granted the city's motion for summary judgment on the issue of the defendants' liability for the public nuisance claim and for cost recovery under CERCLA.

Who won?

City of Portland prevailed in part, as the court allowed its public nuisance claim and cost recovery under CERCLA to proceed, finding that the defendants were liable for the contamination.

City of Portland prevailed in part, as the court allowed its public nuisance claim and cost recovery under CERCLA to proceed.

You must be