Opinion ID: 1848379
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alabama Power Company

Text: The plaintiffs' claims alleging trespass and nuisance as to APCo must be considered separately from those claims against Russell and Avondale because APCo did not participate in the discharge of foreign materials into Lake Martin. The plaintiffs' action against APCo rests on the theory that APCo has a duty to keep Lake Martin clean, and that it breached that duty by allowing Russell and Avondale to discharge contaminants into Lake Martin.
Trespass requires an intentional act by the defendant. See Born v. Exxon Corp., 388 So.2d 933, 934 (Ala.1980) (It seems clear from Borland [ v. Sanders Lead Co., 369 So.2d 523 (Ala.1979),] and Rushing [ v. Hooper-McDonald, Inc., 293 Ala. 56, 300 So.2d 94 (1974)] that in order for one to be liable to another for trespass, the person must intentionally enter upon land in the possession of another or the person must intentionally cause some `substance' or `thing' to enter upon another's land.). The plaintiffs argue that APCo committed trespass by allowing Russell and Avondale to discharge contaminants into Lake Martin and then by allowing those contaminants to remain on the bottom of the lake. The plaintiffs quote C.O. Osborn Contracting Co. v. Alabama Gas Corp., 273 Ala. 6, 7, 135 So.2d 166, 167 (1961): `Without question one may commit a trespass through another as his active agent or joint participant, although the one may not be present at the time, taking any personal hand in the trespass. He must be directing, aiding, participating in, or must ratify the trespass.' Quoting Trognitz v. Fry, 215 Ala. 609, 610, 112 So. 156, 157 (1927) (emphasis added). Osborn Contracting Co. dealt specifically with the distinction between an employer's liability for trespass based on the actions by an agent taken at the direction of the employer and an employer's liability for trespass on the case based on the actions of an agent not taken at the employer's direction. In this case, there is no agency a relationship between APCo, on the one hand, and Russell and Avondale, on the other. No evidence was presented to indicate that APCo directed Russell and Avondale to discharge their waste in any manner or to indicate that APCo aided or participated in the discharge. Therefore, there was no intentional act by APCo to support a claim of trespass.
The plaintiffs argue that APCo is liable because, they say, it permitted a nuisance to be created and maintained on its property. In order to prevail on this claim, the plaintiffs must show that APCo has a duty to control any discharge into Lake Martin. APCo operates Lake Martin pursuant to a license issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). During the trial, the plaintiffs, over APCo's objection, placed that license in evidence. Article 19 of the FERC license provides as follows: In the construction, maintenance, or operation of the project, the Licensee shall be responsible for, and shall take reasonable measures to prevent, soil erosion on lands adjacent to streams or other waters, stream sedimentation, and any form of water or air pollution. The Commission, upon request or upon its own motion, may order the Licensee to take such measures as the Commission finds to be necessary for these purposes, after notice and opportunity for hearing. (Emphasis added.) The plaintiffs cannot rely on any duty created by the FERC license to support their nuisance claim, for two reasons. First, when the defendants attempted to remove this action to a United States district court, the plaintiffs supported their motion opposing the removal with an affidavit of counsel stating that the plaintiffs were not alleging any breaches of federal legislation, licenses or grants, and that prosecution of the nuisance claim [did] not require the use of any license. Counsel also represented in the affidavit that the plaintiffs had neither pleaded nor sought to prove violations of any federal laws. Having disclaimed reliance upon the FERC license, the plaintiffs cannot now be heard to say that, for the purpose of this litigation, that license created a duty on the part of APCo to prevent water pollution. Second, the exclusive forum for a violation of an FERC license is a United States district court. 16 U.S.C. § 825p. The plaintiffs correctly note that Airco Alloys Division, Airco, Inc. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 411 N.Y.S.2d 460, 65 A.D.2d 378 (1978), stands for the proposition that simply because there is a related and perhaps relevant scheme of federal regulation, 16 U.S.C. § 825p does not preclude a traditional common-law claim. 411 N.Y.S.2d at 463, 65 A.D.2d at 382-83. However, the plaintiffs in Airco sought protection of a property right under a contract, leading the New York court to conclude that [t]he ground for recovery is Contract NS 1, not the Act or the Federal power law, and New York courts may determine questions which may arise under the Federal power law when incidental to cases not arising under this law. 65 A.D.2d at 386, 411 N.Y.S.2d at 465. Here, the plaintiffs, in order to come under the circumstances recognized in Airco, must rely upon a traditional common-law theory, independent of the FERC license. The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) regulates the environmental activities of Russell and Avondale. The wastewater from their plants is being discharged into Sugar Creek by the Sugar Creek Plant, and ultimately into Lake Martin, pursuant to valid ADEM permits. In Tipler v. McKenzie Tank Lines, 547 So.2d 438, 441 (Ala.1989), this Court found no liability where the plaintiff alleged that Exxon Corporation had created and maintained a public nuisance either for maintaining, or for failing to prevent, a chain of events and circumstances over which [Exxon] had no reasonable means of control. Where a plant discharges effluent into a stream that ultimately runs into a reservoir created by a dam, the owner of the reservoir cannot be liable for maintaining a nuisance, absent evidence indicating that it authorized or participated in the deposit of pollutants or that it had control over the deposits. Hood v. Slefkin, 88 R.I. 178, 143 A.2d 683 (1958), opinion adhered to on reargument sub nom. Winsten v. Slefkin, 88 R.I. 178, 150 A.2d 648 (1959). The only prong of this test that arguably might apply to APCo is the control-over-the-deposits prong. However, as previously noted, that control cannot be grounded upon the FERC license charging APCo with a duty to take reasonable measures to prevent water pollution. The record is devoid of any other basis for concluding that APCo had any control over the activities of Russell and Avondale. We therefore reverse the trial court's judgment as to APCo and render a judgment for APCo on both the trespass claim and the nuisance claim.