Opinion ID: 1848379
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Russell and Avondale

Text: In Rushing v. Hooper-McDonald, Inc., 293 Ala. 56, 300 So.2d 94 (1974), this Court held that an indirect trespass occurs where the trespasser releases a foreign polluting matter beyond the boundaries of his property, knowing to a substantial certainty that it will invade the property. [3] In comparing direct trespass and indirect trespass, this Court, in Borland v. Sanders Lead Co., 369 So.2d 523 (Ala.1979), stated that a plaintiff need not show actual damage to prove direct trespass. However, the plaintiff must prove four elements to show an indirect trespass: 1) an invasion affecting an interest in the exclusive possession of his property; 2) an intentional doing of the act which results in the invasion; 3) reasonable foreseeability that the act done could result in an invasion of plaintiff's possessory interest; and 4) substantial damage[ ] to the res.  369 So.2d at 529. In order to prove an indirect trespass, the plaintiffs here must show that some substance has entered upon the land itself, affecting its nature and character, and causing substantial actual damage to the res.  369 So.2d at 530. (Initial emphasis added.) In this case, whether water actually splashed onto the plaintiffs' property is sharply contested. As previously noted, the plaintiffs testified that water would splash onto their property when boats passed their property or during storms. However, none of the plaintiffs was able to state where his or her private property ended and APCo's property began. There was testimony from Larry Tuggle, a witness for the plaintiffs, that samples were taken when the water was at high pool and that high pool was at the 490-foot contour line; other witnesses testified that the lake was at high pool during a portion of each year. Therefore, the jury could reasonably have inferred that water from Lake Martin splashed onto the plaintiffs' properties. The plaintiffs, however, acknowledge that they did not sue Russell, Avondale, and APCo merely because water from Lake Martin splashed onto their land. The plaintiffs argue that the trespass occurred because the water that splashed onto their land contained chemical contaminants that originated at Russell's and Avondale's plants. The evidence connecting the contaminants to the plaintiffs' property consisted of (1) tests that showed toxic substances in the sludge in the Sugar Creek basin, (2) testimony that color from the dyes used by Russell and Avondale stained the water, (3) testimony from Dr. Willard Blevins, an expert witness for the plaintiffs, that he saw divers bring sediment from the bottom of Lake Martin and that that sediment appeared to be sludge, (4) Dr. Gould's testimony that the chlorination techniques used at the Sugar Creek Plant ostensibly removed the dye from the wastewater, but that they actually increased the carcinogenic properties of the dyes, (5) Dr. Gould's testimony that the treatment plant was incapable of filtering out all of the carcinogenic compounds, and (6) Dr. Gould's testimony that the chemicals found in the sediment on the bottom of Lake Martin would from time to time rise as flocs and that if those flocs happened to be near the homeowners property, those chemicals would splash onto the property. The foregoing evidence of contamination of the plaintiffs' properties is deficient in several respects; we must determine whether these deficiencies merely raise a jury question or whether they require a conclusion that the evidence was insufficient, as a matter of law, to support a judgment for the plaintiffs. Dr. Gould, the plaintiffs' expert witness, never tested the water being discharged from the Sugar Creek Plant. He never tested the water in that part of Lake Martin in the area of the Raintree subdivision or, indeed, in any part of Lake Martin. Dr. Blevins, another expert witness for the plaintiffs, never tested the sediment from the bottom of Lake Martin. The only tests Dr. Blevins conducted were in the Sugar Creek embayment, an area just before the confluence of Sugar Creek and Elkahatchee Creek. Neither expert for the plaintiffs tested the soil on the plaintiffs' property. The defendants, however, tested the water in Lake Martin in the area of the Raintree subdivision, as well as the soil in that area. The defendants tested these areas for the chemical compounds Dr. Gould testified would result from the chlorination of the dyes. They found no toxic chemicals. Dr. Gould testified that another carcinogenic compound could result from the chlorination process; however, he could not specify the compound. He also testified that he could not quantify an amount of the unspecified compound that would be present in the effluent discharged from the Sugar Creek Plant or in the sludge or that might rise to the top of the water. The plaintiffs argue that the defendants tested for the wrong compounds. This argument, however, fails for three reasons. First, the defendants tested for the compounds the plaintiffs' expert witness, Dr. Gould, specified. Second, even though the defendants did not specifically test for azo dyes, the fact that the tests found no chemical components in the water or the soil indicates that it is highly improbable that azo dyesa chemical not tested for were the only chemicals to wash into the Raintree area of the lake. Third, it is not the defendants' burden to prove that no contamination occurred. The plaintiffs must prove that an invasion occurred. They say they failed to produce evidence of chemical contamination on their properties because of a difficulty in testing for the chemicals. They offered no evidence, however, as to the degree of difficulty in testing for the chemicals. Viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the evidence offered to show a trespass amounted to little more than inference upon inference. The jury was first asked to infer from the experts' conclusions, which were not based on testing of water or soil samples in the areas described in the plaintiffs' complaint, that the area is contaminated by an unidentified compound. Based on evidence indicating that Russell and Avondale use azo dyes in their textile processing, Dr. Gould opined that these dyes are discharged into the wastewater treated by the Sugar Creek Plant. Without testing the waters discharged from the Sugar Creek Plant, Dr. Gould then stated that the Sugar Creek Plant could not remove those chemicals from the wastewater. Without corroborating evidence from soil and water samples, the jury was then asked to infer that these chemicals traveled from the Sugar Creek Plant to the area of the Raintree subdivision on Lake Martin, and that they then washed onto the shores of the plaintiffs' properties. As to the question whether there is sludge at the bottom of Lake Martin, Dr. Blevins testified that he saw a diver bring up something black from bottom of Lake Martin in the area of the Raintree subdivision, which he envision[ed] being biosolids. Dr. Blevins concluded that what he saw indicated sludge at the bottom of Lake Martin in the Raintree area. However, neither Dr. Gould nor Dr. Blevins tested this substance. The results of tests performed by CH2M Hill, an environmental consulting firm, for Alexander City from the samples Dr. Blevins saw being taken from the bottom of Lake Martin indicated the presence of no hazardous materials. Evidence was presented indicating that the sediment at the bottom of the Sugar Creek embayment contained potentially toxic material. After the tests performed by CH2M Hill showed no contamination, a second series of tests were conducted at the Sugar Creek embayment. This testing consisted of obtaining samples of the darkest material found in the Sugar Creek embayment. According to CH2M Hill's report, this nonrandom sampling showed only what was contained in the darkest sediments, not what could be expected to be found in the Sugar Creek embayment as a whole. Testing of the darkest sediments showed some toxicity, possibly caused by the presence of ammonia and copper. According to the report: The concentrations of copper and ammonia are in the range where toxic effects could be expected but are not sufficiently elevated to clearly implicate them. The test results did not show that the Sugar Creek embayment was permeated with toxins or that the results of a random sample would have indicated toxicity. No testing indicated toxins in any other part of Sugar Creek or in Lake Martin. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that, in an action alleging contamination of soil and water, the failure of experts to conduct studies on the plaintiffs' properties was fatal. Berry v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 989 F.2d 822 (5th Cir.1993). In Berry, the experts testified that chemicals traveled in the ground-water, contaminating the plaintiffs' soil and their well water. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the experts' opinions were not based on any studies done on plaintiffs' land. 989 F.2d at 827. The court held that the trial court had correctly entered a summary judgment in favor of the defendants: The court correctly noted that Dr. Pike's [a chemical engineer testifying for the plaintiffs] opinions were not based on tests he performed, or even tests of the properties at issue. Ms. Subra's [a chemist testifying for the plaintiffs] conclusions were not based on her own expert area of chemical analysis, and were not based on tests of the plaintiff's properties. Dr. Aughenbaugh [a professor of geotechnical engineering testifying for the plaintiffs] testified as a geochemist or hydrogeologist, areas in which he was not qualified, using data and methodology not recognized by experts in those fields.... The district court did not commit manifest error in ruling that these experts' opinions were insufficient to overcome summary judgment. See Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 874 F.2d 307, 312-13 (5th Cir.1989), cert. denied 494 U.S. 1046, 110 S.Ct. 1511, 108 L.Ed.2d 646 (1990). 989 F.2d at 828. [4] In Prescott v. Leaf River Forest Products, Inc., 740 So.2d 301 (Miss.1999), a case involving analogous facts, the Mississippi Supreme Court upheld a summary judgment in favor of Leaf River Forest Products, Inc., against property owners along the Leaf River claiming damage[] resulting from chemical wastes deposited into the Leaf River during the operations of a pulp mill. 740 So.2d at 304-05. In that case, the property owners claimed that they had suffered mental anguish from the fear of unknown future diseases; they also alleged trespass and nuisance based on their exposure to dioxin, and nuisance resulting from discoloration of the river and the sandbars. The trial court held that there was no evidence that the properties were physically invaded by chemicals or that Leaf River was the source of any such chemicals. 740 So.2d at 306. The property owners argued that trespass could be proven by circumstantial evidence alone. The court upheld the summary judgment in favor of the defendants, stating that there was no scientific evidence showing that dioxin, the chemical at issue, was present on the properties. In summary, several conclusions urged by the plaintiffs are unsupported by evidence: that the treatment technique at the Sugar Creek Plant was incapable of removing from the wastewater the unknown chemical alleged by Dr. Gould to be present in the wastewater and was incapable of removing the harmful components of azo dyes; that the sediment at the bottom of Lake Martin in the area of the Raintree subdivision contained biosolids and sludge; and that water movement would cause the particles of biosolids at the bottom of Lake Martin to rise to the top of the water from time to time. Based on these unsupported conclusions, drawn from a series of inferences ungrounded in scientific data and unsupported by the evidence, the plaintiffs asked the jury to infer (a) that the chemicals they allege were present rose to the top of the water, (b) that at the moment they rose to the surface, the water was at or above the 490-foot contour line, and (c) that the water then splashed onto the plaintiffs' properties, although no evidence of chemical contamination of the plaintiffs' properties was ever presented. Even if we were to hold that the experts' conclusions, which were not based on scientific data gained from tests performed at the site of the alleged contamination, supported a finding that toxic chemicals were present in some portion of Lake Martin, the jury, in order to find for the plaintiffs, would nevertheless have had to base its verdicts upon multiple inferences. This it may not do. The ultimate conclusion that any chemicals were deposited onto the plaintiffs' properties is, at best, speculative. `[A]n inference cannot be derived from another inference. An inference must be based on a known or proven fact.' Kmart Corp. v. Bassett, 769 So.2d 282, 287 (Ala.2000), quoting Khirieh v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 594 So.2d 1220, 1224 (1992), quoting, in turn, Malone Freight Lines, Inc. v. McCardle, 277 Ala. 100, 107, 167 So.2d 274, 280 (1964). This Court has repeatedly held that it is not permissible to build inference upon inference which leads to pure conjecture or guess. Johnson v. Louisville & N.R.R., 240 Ala. 219, 225, 198 So. 350, 354 (1940). The lack of scientific evidence indicating the presence of any chemicals causing actual substantial damage to the plaintiffs' properties or to support any of Dr. Gould's opinions is fatal to the plaintiffs' trespass claims. Borland, 369 So.2d at 529. The plaintiffs failed to carry their burden; they failed to prove substantial actual damage caused by the presence of any chemical. See Borland, 369 So.2d at 530. The plaintiffs' failure to present such evidence entitled Russell and Avondale to a judgment as a matter of law on the trespass claims. [5]
A `nuisance' is anything that works hurt, inconvenience or damage to another. The fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful does not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful or such as would affect only one of fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man. Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-120. This statute is a codification of Alabama's common-law nuisance principles. This Court has recognized that even a lawful and careful activity, when combined with culpable acts, constitutes a nuisance if the activity hurts, inconveniences, or damages the complaining party. See Tipler v. McKenzie Tank Lines, supra. Therefore, although Russell and Avondale argue that their actions were in accordance with state and federal regulations and that they were permissible under various permits, the plaintiffs may still maintain an action against Russell and Avondale if they can prove the elements of nuisance. In Alabama, a nuisance can be either private or public. A public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals. A private nuisance is one limited in its injurious effects to one or a few individuals. Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-121; Hunter-Benn Co. v. Nelson, 267 Ala. 472, 103 So.2d 783 (1958). The distinction between a private nuisance and a public nuisance is an important one. A private nuisance gives a right of action to the person injured while a public nuisance gives no right of action to any individual, but must be abated by a process instituted in the name of the state. Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-121. However, an individual may have a cause of action under a public-nuisance theory if that individual suffered a special damage... in which the public does not participate. Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-123. In order to support an individual's cause of action for a public nuisance, the nuisance must cause a special damage that is different in kind and degree from [the damage] suffered by the public in general. City of Birmingham v. City of Fairfield, 375 So.2d 438, 441 (Ala.1979); Ala.Code 1975 § 6-5-123. Therefore, if the nuisance allegedly created by the discharge of wastewater into Sugar Creek, and ultimately into Lake Martin, is a public one, the plaintiffs in this case must show that the discharge has caused them special damage, i.e., damage that is different than that suffered by others. In Stone Container Corp. v. Stapler, 263 Ala. 524, 83 So.2d 283 (1955), evidence was presented that a public stream would often flood and that after the floodwater receded, large sheets of pulp waste would remain in the plaintiffs yard. The waste matter would trap water; it would then become stagnant and a breeding ground for mosquitos, which would invade the plaintiffs property and annoy him and his guests. The court held that the plaintiff could maintain an action based on a public-nuisance theory because he suffered special damage different than others affected by the flooding. The plaintiffs in the present case, however, have presented no evidence indicating such special damage. The plaintiffs alleged that Russell's and Avondale's actions resulted in the loss of the use and enjoyment of Lake Martin. The plaintiffs claim that the nuisance they suffered was a private nuisance. In support of this theory, they rely on this Court's holding in Elmore v. Ingalls, 245 Ala. 481, 17 So.2d 674 (1944). In their brief, they quote the following paragraphs from Elmore: `The old maxim, Aqua curritt, et debet currere ut solebat, is familiar to all. It means, in practical application, that water is the common and equal property of every one through whose domain it flows, and that the right of each to its use and consumption, while passing over his possessions is the same. He must so use it as not to destroy or unreasonably impair the equal rights of others. Sic utere tuo ut alienum non ledas [use your own property in such a manner as not to injure that of another] is the law's mandate in such conditions....' . . . . `In Gould on Waters, it is declared that actions may be maintained for the following causes: The casting upon one's own land of dirt and foul water, or substances which reach the stream by percolation; ... in letting off of water made noxious by precipitation of minerals,... or rendering the water unfit for domestic, culinary, or mining purposes or for cattle to drink of, or fish to live in, or for manufacturing purposes.' 245 Ala. at 482-83, 17 So.2d at 674-75 (quoting Tennessee Coal, Iron & R.R. v. Hamilton, 100 Ala. 252, 14 So. 167 (1893)) (bracketed language added). The plaintiffs' reliance on Elmore, however, is misplaced. In Elmore, as in Tennessee Coal, Iron & R.R., the water in question flowed through the plaintiffs' property. The creek or streambed belonged to the plaintiffs; as a result, the plaintiffs had a right to the water as it flowed through their properties. In this case, the plaintiffs own no part of Lake Martin. They did not suffer the type of damage anticipated where contaminated water causes a nuisance on someone's property as the water passes across the land. For this reason, the plaintiffs' private-nuisance claims must fail. [6] Russell and Avondale correctly argue that the nuisance, if any, is a public nuisance, because, they say, the alleged nuisance is in the water of Lake Martin, a public waterway whose bed is owned solely by APCo. The discharge of contaminants into a public body of water constitutes a public nuisance. See National Container Corp. v. State, 138 Fla. 32, 189 So. 4 (1939); and People of the State of New York v. State of New Jersey, 256 U.S. 296, 41 S.Ct. 492, 65 L.Ed. 937 (1921). Russell and Avondale argue that the plaintiffs never proved that the alleged nuisance prevented them from using or enjoying their own property. While the plaintiffs offered evidence that they were unable to use and enjoy the lake, the use and enjoyment of a public area is a public right. [7] Id. The alleged nuisance in this case affects anyone who would want to use and enjoy Lake Martin, not just those who live on its banks. Any nuisance caused by the discharge of contaminated wastewater into Lake Martin is a public, not a private, nuisance. Because the plaintiffs expressly waived any claim to recovery under a public-nuisance theory, [8] thereby avoiding the necessity of proving that they suffered special damage not suffered by members of the general public, it is unnecessary to address whether the record contains substantial evidence of such damage. [9]