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

settlementtortplaintiffmediationnegligencestatutetrialsummary judgmentleasestatute of limitationsappellant
tortplaintiffmediationnegligencestatutetrialleasestatute of limitationsappellant

Related Cases

Roumbos v. Samuel G. Vazanellis & Thiros and Stracci, PC, 95 N.E.3d 63
View Case »
Donald v. Garry, 19 Cal.App.3d 769, 97 Cal.Rptr. 191, 45 A.L.R.3d 1177
View Case »
George v. Jefferson Hosp. Ass’n, Inc., 337 Ark. 206, 987 S.W.2d 710
View Case »
Hammerstein v. Jean Development West, 111 Nev. 1471, 907 P.2d 975
View Case »
Schroeder v. Weighall, 179 Wash.2d 566, 316 P.3d 482
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Weir v. East Ohio Gas Co., Not Reported in N.E.2d, 2003 WL 1194080, 2003 -Ohio- 1229

Facts

In October 1989, natural gas and crude oil were released onto the properties of the appellants. After East Ohio failed to adequately remediate the site, the appellants filed a federal action in 1997, which resulted in a settlement agreement requiring East Ohio to remediate the site by July 15, 1998. However, the appellants claimed that no remediation activities were conducted, and during East Ohio's remediation efforts on other properties, a significant amount of water was diverted onto their properties. The appellants filed a complaint against East Ohio in May 1999, alleging trespass, nuisance, and negligence.

In October of 1989, both natural gas and crude oil were released onto Appellants' properties. In 1997, based upon East Ohio's failure to adequately remediate the site, Appellants filed a federal action to force East Ohio to conduct a proper and thorough remediation of their properties.

Issue

Whether the statute of limitations had expired for each instance of tortious conduct alleged in the complaint.

The issue we must resolve is whether the statute of limitations had expired for each instance of tortious conduct alleged in the complaint.

Rule

The statute of limitations for negligence claims begins to run when the plaintiff discovers the injury, and a permanent trespass or nuisance occurs when the tortious act has been completed, even if the injury continues.

The statute of limitations for negligence claims begins to run when the plaintiff discovers the injury, and a permanent trespass or nuisance occurs when the tortious act has been completed, even if the injury continues.

Analysis

The court determined that the leak causing the contamination was a single act that occurred in 1989, and thus the statute of limitations for the trespass and nuisance claims had expired. However, the court found that the claims related to negligent remediation and the trespass by unidentified persons occurred within the statute of limitations, as these actions were ongoing and not completed until later.

The court determined that the leak causing the contamination was a single act that occurred in 1989, and thus the statute of limitations for the trespass and nuisance claims had expired.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment on most claims but reversed it regarding the claims of negligent remediation and trespass by unidentified persons, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the trial court and this cause is remanded so that the parties may fully litigate the remaining two claims which are not barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

Who won?

East Ohio Gas Company prevailed on most claims due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, but the court allowed two claims to proceed based on timely actions.

East Ohio Gas Company prevailed on most claims due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, but the court allowed two claims to proceed based on timely actions.

You must be