Opinion ID: 775258
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Lunsford Complaint

Text: 29 The first amended complaint contains four claims: for nuisance, for trespass, for negligence, and for strict liability. The requested remedies include (1) damages for personal injury, property damage, economic damage, and non-economic damage; and (2) injunctive relief. 30 The first amended complaint alleges that Defendant has knowingly emitted from its factory various pollutants from 1988 through October 28, 1999 (the date on which the first amended complaint was filed). Those emissions allegedly consisted of gases, smoke and particulates, including sudden and accidental discharge of gases, smoke, fires and other pollutants. (Emphasis added.) The first amended complaint further alleges that such emissions (1) obstruct[ ] the reasonable, comfortable use and enjoyment of [Lunsford's] real property, and are thus a nuisance; (2) physically invade Lunsford's property, and that such invasion constitutes a trespass; (3) result from Defendant's failureto use due care to avoid injuring Plaintiff and other persons in the area of the factory; and (4) are the result of an ultrahazardous activity, rendering Defendant strictly liable for harm caused by them. The complaint also alleges that the emissions caused Lunsford to suffer damages because of physical injury, property damage, pain and suffering, diminished life expectancy, loss of earnings, diminution of value of real and personal property, and loss of enjoyment of real and personal property. The emissions allegedly must be enjoined in order to prevent future damages to Lunsford. 31 Finally, in order to preserve for Lunsford the opportunity to amend the complaint further to seek punitive damages, the first amended complaint alleges that Defendant's operation of its plant so as to cast out harmful emissions constitutes the intentional infliction of harm on Lunsford and others exposed to the emissions. Specifically, it alleges that, since 1991, various public entities have notified Defendant of the need to abate the nuisance, but that Defendant has repeatedly refused to do so. The alleged failure of 32 Defendant's officers, agents and employees to cease the emissions . . . and their continuing authorization of such emissions, despite their knowledge that such emissions, cast out of the factory and into physical contact with the respiratory systems of persons inhaling them, might well injure such persons, are and were willful, wanton, reckless and malicious and . . . amount to an intent to inflict on such persons such harmful and offensive contact and any and all injuries caused thereby.