Title: Republic Steel Corporation v. Payne

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

132 So. 2d 581 (1961)
REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION
v.
Robert R. PAYNE.
REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION
v.
Kathleen PAYNE.
6 Div. 406, 407.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
June 29, 1961.
Rehearing Denied September 14, 1961.
*582 Burr, McKamy, Moore & Thomas, Birmingham, for appellant.
Hogan, Callaway & Vance, and Dempsey F. Pennington, Birmingham, for appellees.
GOODWYN, Justice.
Appellees brought separate suits in the circuit court of Jefferson County against appellant, Republic Steel Corporation, herein sometimes referred to as "Republic", to recover damages for injuries allegedly suffered by them as the result of inhaling smoke fumes and gases emanating from a rock pile maintained by Republic in its mining operations at Sayre, in Jefferson County, Alabama. The husband also claimed in his complaint for loss of his wife's services. The complaints contained counts charging both negligence and wantonness.
Appellees are husband and wife. During the period complained of they lived in a house adjacent to Republic's operations at Sayre. They were living there under a lease arrangement with Marc Levine and Joseph A. Green, owners of the land subject to certain reservations, exceptions, covenants and easements set forth in Republic's deed to them of December 12, 1950, hereinafter discussed. The said deed was filed for record in the office of the judge of probate of Jefferson County on February 21, 1951, prior to the time the appellees moved on the land.
The two cases were consolidated for trial and were submitted here on one record. The jury returned verdicts in favor of both the husband and wife. Judgments on said verdicts were duly rendered. Republic's motions for new trials in both cases being overruled, it brought these appeals from the the final judgments and also from the judgments overruling its motions for new trials.
Republic's superintendent, J. L. Myers, was made a party defendant in both cases and in both cases the jury found in his favor.
*583 The principal question concerns the effect on Rupublic's liability of certain provisions contained in the above deed from Republic to Levine and Green. This issue is presented by Republic's pleas 3 through 7 addressed separately to each count of each complaint, demurrers to which were sustained, and also by the refusal of Republic's requested affirmative charges under its pleas of the general issue and the denial of its motions for new trials.
The conveyance from Republic to Levine and Green was made subject to certain "reservations, exceptions, covenants and easements * * * reserved to the seller, its successors, assigns, grantees, licensees and/or contractors", among which are the following, viz.:
*584 The conveyance also contains the following provision: "* * * it is understood that the conditions, covenants, easements, reservations and exceptions herein set out have materially reduced the amount of the consideration of this conveyance * * *."
We are at the conclusion that appellees had constructive notice of the provisions of the recorded deed; that they occupied the property subject to such provisions; and that such provisions operated as a release of Republic's negligence (assuming, without deciding, that the evidence supports a finding of negligence). We also entertain the view that, under the facts of this case, there has not been a showing of wantonness on the part of Republic. We proceed to a discussion of our reasons for these conclusions.
The rule seems to be well settled that an easement may be the subject of a reservation; and that a reservation of an easement in a deed by which lands are conveyed is equivalent, for the purpose of the creation of the easement, to an express grant of the easement by the grantee of the lands. See: Webb v. Robbins, 77 Ala. 176, 183; McMahon v. Williams, 79 Ala. 288, 290-292; Gilmer v. Mobile & Montgomery Railway Co., 79 Ala. 569, 574, 58 Am.Rep. 623; Morris & Morris v. Tuskaloosa Manufacturing Co., 83 Ala. 565, 571-572, 574, 3 So. 689; Noojin v. Cason, 124 Ala. 458, 460, 27 So. 490; Webb v. Jones, 163 Ala. 637, 50 So. 887; McKee v. Club-View Heights, 230 Ala. 652, 654, 162 So. 671, 673; Moseby v. Roche, 233 Ala. 280, 282, 283, 171 So. 351; Pugh v. Whittle, 240 Ala. 503, 506, 199 So. 851; Buckalew v. Niehuss, 249 Ala. 585, 587, 32 So. 2d 299; 17A Am.Jur., Easements, § 31, p. 641; 28 C.J.S. Easements § 25, p. 679. As said in McKee v. Club-View Heights, supra:
From Buckalew v. Niehuss, supra, is the following:
The manifest intention of the parties to the deed, as gathered from the language used, was that there be reserved or created an easement in favor of Republic to do the very things complained of. And, since the easement is incident to the ownership of lands and does not involve a person or corporation engaged in public service, the exculpatory provisions of the easement, *585 to the extent that they relieve Republic of liability for its negligence, are not against public policy. See: Life & Casualty Ins. Co. of Tennessee v. Porterfield, 239 Ala. 148, 150, 194 So. 173; Housing Authority of Birmingham Dist. v. Morris, 244 Ala. 557, 563, 14 So. 2d 527; Wheeler, Lacey & Brown, Inc. v. Baker, 269 Ala. 293, 294, 112 So. 2d 461. See, also, Anno. "Limiting Liability For Own Negligence", 175 A.L.R. 8. In our view, such provisions constitute an effective defense against appellees' claims charging Republic with negligence.
As already noted, the deed contains a provision that the price paid for the land by Levine and Green was materially reduced because of "the conditions, covenants, easements, reservations and exceptions set out" in the deed. The effect of this and the provisions relieving Republic of liability was that Levine and Green contracted for all damages to be done to them, and their successors in interest, by the fumes and gases, which they had a legal right to do; and agreed that fumes and gases from Republic's operations could go on and over their lands, without Republic being liable therefor, a thing they had the right to do; and agreed, for themselves and their successors in interest, not to sue for any future damages resulting from such fumes and gases (such covenant operating as a release, Flinn v. Carter, 59 Ala. 364, 366; 45 Am.Jur., Release, § 3, p. 676; 76 C.J.S. Release § 44, p. 675), which they had a right to do. So, Levine and Green having the right to contract with respect to such things, their lessees thereafter, with actual or constructive notice of such easement and the conditions incident thereto, stand in no better position than they do. See: Webb v. Robbins, supra; McMahon v. Williams, supra; Morris & Morris v. Tuskaloosa Manufacturing Co., supra; Adler & Co. v. Western Railway of Alabama, 192 Ala. 507, 513, 514, 68 So. 361; City of Birmingham v. Graham, 202 Ala. 202, 204, 79 So. 574; Scheuer v. Britt, 218 Ala. 270, 273, 118 So. 658; Moseby v. Roche, supra; Pugh v. Whittle, 240 Ala. 503, 506, 199 So. 851; Buckalew v. Niehuss, supra; Code 1940, Tit. 47, § 102. As said in Pugh v. Whittle, supra:
Apparently, the trial court took the position, as do appellees, that since the exculpatory provisions of the deed make no mention of "negligence", it was not intended to exonerate Republic from liability for its negligence, particularly in view of the rule that such provisions should be strictly construed against exoneration. Although the word "negligence" is not used, it seems to us it was clearly intended to release Republic from liability for its negligence. Otherwise, most of the exculpatory provisions, including the covenant not to sue, would be without meaning. It is difficult to see how such provisions could have been more comprehensively drafted to relieve Republic from liability for damages, whatever might be the basis therefor, except, perhaps, by specifically using the word "negligence." But failure to use such word is not alone determinative of the intention of the parties. To say it was intended to relieve Republic only from liability for damages based on a nuisance (cf. Terrell *586 v. Alabama Water Service Co., 245 Ala. 68, 70-71, 15 So.2d 727), would be to disregard the plain and unambiguous wording of those provisions exonerating Republic "from any and all claims for damages and all liability by reason of damages either to persons or property which may in any way be caused or occasioned at any time," and the covenant not to sue.
Appellees seem to take the position that since Republic (as contended by appellees but denied by Republic) knew the gases and fumes from the rock pile would probably cause injury to appellees, but nevertheless persisted in using and maintaining it without taking appropriate remedial measures, that such action and failure to act constituted wantonness on the part of Republic. We are unable to agree with this reasoning. Here, there was no duty on Republic to prevent such fumes and gases from going over on the property occupied by appellees, but to the contrary. As already discussed, Republic had an easement giving it the privilege of doing the very thing of which appellees complain and of which they had notice before moving on the property. It would be an anomaly to say, under the circumstances of this case, that Republic had the right to so use the property occupied by appellees, yet would be guilty of wantonness if it did so use it. Consciousness that injury to appellees would probably result cannot, under the circumstances here present, operate to convert Republic's continued rightful use of the property into an act of wantonness; for whatever right appellees had to be on the property was subordinate to Republic's right to have fumes and gases from its rock pile go on and over it. It seems to us that appellees' claimed injuries more properly are chargeable to their continued occupancy of the property after experiencing the presence of the fumes and gases than to the continued doing by Republic of what it had the right to do. We do not think the circumstances of this case establish wantonness on the part of Republic.
From what we have said, it follows that it was reversible error to refuse appellant's requested affirmative charges with hypothesis as to both the negligence and wanton counts in both cases.
Judgments in both cases are reversed and the causes are remanded.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and COLEMAN, JJ., concur.