Opinion ID: 2144202
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reasons Supporting Strict Liability of the Rights Lessor

Text: Since Jackson Hill was decided over eighty years ago, strict liability in tort has become widely accepted and widely applied. Enos Coal Mining Co. v. Schuchart, 243 Ind. 692, 188 N.E.2d 406 (1963) illustrates some of the general principles that are relevant. There, we held a coal mining company strictly liable for surface damage caused by blasting in the company's mine. The plaintiff's home near the mine had sustained structural damage due to vibrations from the blasting. In imposing strict liability, we reasoned: A business should bear its own costs, burdens, and expenses of operation, and these should be distributed by means of the price of the resulting product and not shifted, particularly, to small neighboring property owners for them to bear alone. We can understand no sensible or reasonable principle of law for shifting such expense or loss to persons who are not involved in such business ventures for profit. Id. at 697, 188 N.E.2d at 408. This rationale applies with no less force to Haseman's liability here. Cf. Mowrer v. Ashland Oil & Refining Co., Inc., 518 F.2d 659 (7th Cir. 1975) (applying language quoted above to a claim of private nuisance under Indiana law). At bottom, strict liability places the loss from an activity proven to generate risk of loss on the one who benefits from the activity rather than an innocent party. [6] The balance of equities weighs heavily against Haseman in this case. He reaped substantial royalties from Coal, Inc.'s exercise of his rights. The commercial activity occurred only to the detriment of the plaintiffs. Subsurface mining carries inherent perils for the surface estate. [7] In estimating how much coal may be removed without jeopardizing the stability of the surface and what support is needed, the law of probabilities is the only guide and the law of gravity the only certainty. Although the extent and timing of the subsidence may be subject to a number of factors, some subsidence occurs over every underground mine[.] Keystone Coal Assoc., 480 U.S. at 477 n. 8, 107 S.Ct. at 1238 n. 8. It would be fundamentally unfair to allow Haseman to profit from his lessee's activities and then wash his hands of any liability by hiding behind the lease. The surface landowners, at least in this case, had no control over what took place beneath their land. Haseman did. In this sense, no lessor of subsurface mineral rights is passive. [8] Haseman could have taken steps to ensure that adequate support remained for the plaintiffs' land by imposing standards on Coal, Inc. Perhaps more important, Haseman, and not the plaintiffs, was in a position to require financial responsibility of his lesseewhether in the form of insurance, indemnity or simply by careful selection of the operator. [9] [T]he defendant's enterprise, while it will be tolerated by the law, must pay its way. W. KEETON, PROSSER & KEETON ON THE LAW OF TORTS 536 (5th ed. 1984). Under this doctrine, the operator is clearly liable for subsidence damage. The balance of equities favors imposing liability on the owner of the rights and transferring to the owner the risk that the operator is unable to fulfill its obligations. Accordingly, we hold that the mineral owner's duty to provide subjacent support cannot be extinguished by a lease of mineral rights unless a separate contract with the surface estate holder so provides. [10]