Opinion ID: 1153196
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Application of Principles to the Present Case

Text: The only property in which plaintiff and Exxon held coexisting rights was the property covered by Exxon's right-of-way and surface lease, an area of 8.2 acres. Insofar as this record shows, Exxon held no other rights to the remainder of the property covered by plaintiff's oyster lease. This case therefore differs from Butler in that no mineral rights are involved and the Mineral Code does not apply by analogy in the determination of fault. [9] Nevertheless, as to these 8.2 acres, plaintiff and Exxon were holders of coexisting property rights to the same property, and the liability of one for damage to the other depends on proof of more than just causation and damages. The owner of an immovable possesses a bundle of rights [10] that constitutes property. When a landowner grants the right for a specific, non-exclusive use of the property to another through a lease, servitude or other instrument, the landowner retains the right to continue any other use of the property that does not interfere with the right granted. Moreover, the owner can transfer this retained right of use to a third party. And when the owner has granted limited, nonexclusive rights to two parties to use the same property for different purposes, the two parties have correlative rights and obligations. As noted above, there are numerous considerations in the determination of delictual liability between the holders of coexisting rights to the same immovable property. In the present case, Exxon acquired the right from the State to dredge, maintain and use the canal on the right-of-way and to install and operate the tank battery on the surface lease. Exxon began exercising these rights in 1972. When plaintiff acquired his oyster lease ten years later, the canal had been dredged and was being used, and the tank battery had been constructed and was operating. The nature of Exxon's existing use incidental to its surface lease and right-of-way precluded oyster production on the same property and made these 8.2 acres unavailable for plaintiff's use under his lease. [11] Moreover, Exxon's maintenance dredging in 1983 did nothing to cause further damage to plaintiff's right to use the 8.2 acres for growing oysters, because that right was already nil. The State (if it had not granted plaintiff's oyster lease) would have had no right to use the 8.2 acres in a manner inconsistent with Exxon's use, and plaintiff did not acquire under the oyster lease any rights greater than those of the landowner. We accordingly conclude that Exxon is not liable for any damages to plaintiff in their relationship as holders of coexisting rights to the 8.2 acres. A somewhat different analysis is applicable to Exxon's liability in its relationship with plaintiff as neighboring proprietors, and a different result obtains. While a sophisticated balancing of many considerations is required to determine delictual liability in the case of two holders of coexisting rights to the same property, the principles of Articles 667-669 are the primary considerations in the determination of delictual liability in the case of adjoining proprietors. Under Articles 667-669, Exxon was prohibited from performing any actions on its surface lease and right-of-way which would cause damage to plaintiff on the adjoining property or interfere substantially with plaintiff's enjoyment of the property, and plaintiff was required to tolerate some inconvenience from Exxon's normal use of its property rights. The 1983 dredging caused damage to property which was within plaintiff's oyster lease but outside of Exxon's servitude and surface lease. The damaged property consisted of the 4.28 acres dredged by Exxon to the west of the right-of-way, the 5.13 acres east of the right-of-way on which Exxon deposited dredged materials and created a spoil bank, and the 13.84 acres of slumped spoil spread area and prop wash area. These twenty-three and one-fourth acres, along with the three acres dredged in the right-of-way on the eastern section of the canal, constituted the twenty-six and one-fourth acres that the trial court found in need of restoration. Exxon clearly had no right to dredge the 4.28 acres west of and outside the right-of-way, and is liable for any damages sustained by plaintiff because of this dredging. As to the spoil bank area and slumped spoil spread area, the right-of-way agreement granted Exxon the right to dredge and maintain a canal within the servitude, but the agreement was silent as to any right to spread dredged materials or to establish a spoil bank outside the servitude. We must therefore decide whether Exxon's depositing of spoil outside the servitude, on property owned by the State and leased to plaintiff for oyster growing, violated its responsibility to its neighbors. The 1972 right-of-way agreement only gave Exxon the right to deposit spoil on banks. Exxon did not obtain any express authority from the State to establish a spoil bank or even to spread the spoil in the bay. Moreover, even if the right-of-way agreement from the common grantor (the State) can be interpreted as having given Exxon the implied right to deposit spoil in the bay rather than having to move it onto shore, there were apparent alternative methods of exercising the right which would have caused significantly less damage. According to the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed in the trial court, plaintiff's lease boundaries were staked with numerous willow poles and Oyster Lease signs before the 1983 dredging, and the stakes remained in place after the dredging except in the area where the dredging occurred. Therefore, Exxon knew or should have known the location of plaintiff's oyster grounds. Exxon could have contacted plaintiff and determined the location of the oyster plantings which were confined to sixteen acres near the south shore as shown on the following exhibit: [12] With knowledge of the location of the seed oysters, Exxon could have spread the spoil in the bay far enough away from the oyster plantings to avoid most of the damage which occurred from establishing a spoil bank on top of seed oysters and from silting. Moreover, spreading the spoil in the manner required by the Corps of Engineers' permit apparently would not have destroyed the marsh mat. We therefore conclude that Exxon's use of the property in its servitude area in such a manner as to injure its adjoining neighbor constituted fault under Article 2315 by analogy to Articles 667-669, and that Exxon's use occasioned more than mere inconvenience to the neighbor. Exxon is therefore liable without negligence for any damages sustained by plaintiff because of the manner of disposition of the dredged materials and the slumping of the spoil from the bank.