Opinion ID: 2239100
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Brockman's Original Third-Party Complaint

Text: Count II of Brockman's original third-party complaint attempted to state a claim under the hazardous waste fund (Superfund) section of the Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 111½, par. 1022.2). Section 22.2 sets out the method by which the fund is funded and lists those persons who bear potential liability for the costs of removal, included among whom are generators and transporters of waste. Third-party defendants advance compelling arguments in opposition to allowing Brockman's third-party claim for section 22.2 recovery. They initially characterize the appellate court's holding as implying a private cause of action. Then, applying the test which this court pronounced in Sawyer Realty Group, Inc. v. Jarvis Corp. (1982), 89 Ill.2d 379, 59 Ill.Dec. 905, 432 N.E.2d 849, and with resort to the rules of statutory construction, they conclude that no private cause of action may be implied under section 22.2. Resolution of the issue before us does not require that we engage in so extensive an analysis. It is apparent to us that the appellate court's use of the phrase private cause of action was not in the same context as that phrase is generally understood and used in Sawyer and its progeny. Moreover, in reaching its conclusion, the appellate court did not engage in the Sawyer analysis. A private cause of action and a third-party claim are separate and distinct concepts. It is conceivable that a party could bring a third-party claim where no private cause of action would be permitted. That being the case, an analysis to determine whether section 22.2 would permit a private cause of action would not be dispositive of the issue before us. The appellate court held that under the circumstances of this case, the Act would permit third-party actions. The court reasoned that since section 22.2 provides for liability among generators and transporters and since it was the intent of the legislature to permit private remedies, the third-party claim was proper. Further, the court reasoned that section 2-406 allows a defendant to join, as third-party defendants, anyone from whom he may have a possibility of recovery of the plaintiff's claimed damages. Upon close examination, we find the court's reasoning to be flawed. Even accepting as true that the Act, as evidenced by those provisions upon which the appellate court relied, promotes third-party claims, those claims may not be brought in contravention of section 2-406 requirements. Section 2-406 confers no substantive rights upon a party; it is merely a procedural device. The action must, in the first instance, be derivative in order for section 2-406 to apply. The section cannot, in and of itself, serve as the basis for the third-party action. The appellate court also reasoned that since the State's complaint sought corrective action to remove toxic waste and since section 22.2 concerns the liability of persons for costs incurred by the State in removing hazardous substances, Brockman's section 22.2 claim was derivative. We disagree with the court's analysis. Initially we note that Brockman's complaint appears to seek a total shifting of liability (indemnification), as opposed to spreading the costs of liability (contribution) (see Heinrich v. Peabody International Corp. (1984), 99 Ill.2d 344, 349, 76 Ill.Dec. 800, 459 N.E.2d 935), the traditional bases for third-party claims. Yet, no claim for indemnity is stated in the pleading. Nor is Brockman's section 22.2 claim brought pursuant to a claim for contribution. In a proper third-party action, the liability of the third-party defendant is dependent on the liability of the third-party plaintiff to the original plaintiff. The fact that here the complaint in the primary action and the third-party complaint, which are based on different sections within the Act, seek similar relief is not dispositive. The proper focus for determining section 2-406 derivative liability is on the substance of the complaint. Brockman's third-party claim under section 22.2 fails to satisfy the threshold requirement of derivative liability for purposes of section 2-406. Section 22.2 clearly states that liability will be imposed on responsible parties when expenses are incurred by the State. The State neither made an allegation that it had incurred any expenses, nor did it make a cost recovery claim against Brockman. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that since Brockman would not be liable to the State pursuant to section 22.2, third-party defendants could not be liable to Brockman. Brockman's third-party claim pursuant to section 22.2 is a separate and independent action, not a proper third-party claim. Section 21, the basis for the State's action against Brockman, merely states that any person may be liable for a violation. Nowhere in the Act do we find a prohibition against third-party claims. Barring an indication from the legislature to the contrary, we decline to hold that, as a matter of law, the Act precludes third-party claims. Such a declaration would be tantamount to legislating from the bench. Therefore, we conclude that where a defendant properly states a claim for contribution, indemnification, or any other cause of action which supports derivative liability, that claim may properly be joined with the primary action. The dismissal of Brockman's section 22.2 claim, though on erroneous grounds, was proper. Count VI of Brockman's original third-party complaint attempted to state a claim for negligent contamination of the site and sought contribution from third-party defendants for damage to the property. Third-party defendants posit several arguments in support of their contention that Brockman may not recover on his contribution claim. They argue that claims made by Brockman in his original third-party complaint arose before March 1, 1978, a time prior to when contribution was allowed in Illinois. Therefore, they argue, the pleadings are insufficient to state a claim for contribution. The Contribution Act applies only to causes of action arising out of occurrences on and after March 1, 1978. (Ill.Rev.Stat. 1987, ch. 70, par. 301; see also Skinner v. Reed-Prentice Division Package Machinery Co. (1977), 70 Ill.2d 1, 17, 15 Ill.Dec. 829, 374 N.E.2d 437 (supplemental opinion).) In his original third-party complaint, Brockman alleged that at various times between February 4, 1971, and September 29, 1979, he was alleged by the plaintiffs to have accepted delivery of waste streams containing hazardous substances from the third-party defendants. Initially, we note that the State's complaint made no allegation against third-party defendants, but rather only named, among other owner/operators, Brockman. Secondly, in reviewing Brockman's original third-party complaint, we find, as third-party defendants allege, that it fails to specifically allege the dates and occurrences involving third-party defendants. In the absence of any allegations that the misconduct complained of occurred at specific times after March 1, 1978, Brockman's complaint failed, in this regard and others, to sufficiently state a claim for contribution. Third-party defendants next argue that there is no common liability in tort for purposes of contribution because proper maintenance and closure of the dump site was the responsibility of the owner/operator. We agree that there could be no common liability for those claims. However, third-party defendants neglect to consider that the primary claim against Brockman also included an allegation that he caused or allowed unpermitted waste to be dumped at the site. The third-party claim and Brockman's argument are that if he allowed unpermitted waste to be dumped it was as a result of third-party defendants' negligent conduct in dumping unpermitted waste. Thus, we believe that the proper transactional nexus for a contribution claim exists. If it is determined that Brockman caused or allowed unpermitted waste to be dumped and, further, if it is found that third-party defendants dumped the unpermitted waste, there could be common liability for contamination of the site. Third-party defendants next argue that the Contribution Act is inapplicable here because: (1) liability in this case is created by statute and does not sound in tort; and (2) public nuisance is not a tort, which would subject them to liability in tort, unless it causes particular harm to an individual of a kind different from that suffered by other members of the public. The language of the Contribution Act requires that all defendants be liable in tort and that their liability arise out of the same injury. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 70, par. 302(a).) The injury is that which is incurred by the plaintiff, as opposed to any injury suffered by the parties seeking contribution. (See Doellman v. Warner & Swasey Co. (1986), 147 Ill.App.3d 842, 847, 101 Ill.Dec. 366, 498 N.E.2d 690.) Further, there is no requirement that the basis for contribution mirror the theory of recovery asserted in the original action. J.I. Case Co. v. McCartin-McAuliffe Plumbing & Heating, Inc. (1987), 118 Ill.2d 447, 462, 114 Ill.Dec. 105, 516 N.E.2d 260. In this case, whether the potential liability arose out of the same injury is the easy question. Clearly, if liability is to attach, it is as a result of the contamination caused by the presence of unpermitted waste at the site. The more difficult question is whether the defendants are subject to liability in tort as that phrase is used in the Contribution Act. In Illinois, there need not be actual tort liability in order to state a cause of action for contribution. The words subject to liability in tort have been interpreted to mean that the persons from whom contribution is sought are potentially capable of being held liable in a court of law or equity. The potential for liability depends merely upon their relative culpability in causing the same injury. See Doellman, 147 Ill.App.3d 842, 101 Ill.Dec. 366, 498 N.E.2d 690; see also Horan, Contribution in Illinois: Skinner v. Reed-Prentice and Senate Bill 308, 61 Chi.B.Rec. 331 (1979). If the underlying claim does not create liability in tort, a third-party plaintiff may not recover on a contribution claim. (See Hopkins v. Powers (1986), 113 Ill.2d 206, 100 Ill.Dec. 579, 497 N.E.2d 757 (Dramshop Act does not create tort liability for purposes of the Contribution Act).) Liability is determined at the time of the injury out of which the right to contribution arises, and not at the time the action for contribution is brought. ( Doyle, 101 Ill.2d at 11, 77 Ill.Dec. 759, 461 N.E.2d 382.) At the time of an injury for which a third-party defendant may be liable in tort, the third-party defendant is in fact subject to liability in tort. However, that liability can be defeated once a defense is established. Doyle, 101 Ill.2d at 10-11, 77 Ill.Dec. 759, 461 N.E.2d 382. The State's complaint alleged both statutory and common law claims. We must therefore determine whether either basis constitutes tortious conduct. A tort has been defined as a breach of a noncontractual legal duty owed to the plaintiff, the source of which may be a statute as well as the common law. ( Hopkins v. Powers (1986), 113 Ill.2d 206, 213, 100 Ill. Dec. 579, 497 N.E.2d 757 (Goldenhersh, J., dissenting), citing Overby v. Johnson (E.D.Mich.1976), 418 F.Supp. 471, 472-73.) Dean Prosser teaches that while a court will provide a remedy in the form of an action for damages, one important form of remedy for tort may also be an injunction or restitution. The only requirement is that the availability of these remedies will depend in the first instance upon the possibility that an action for damages could lie for the wrong. W. Keeton, Prosser & Keeton on Torts § 1, at 2-3 (5th ed. 1984). Without question, third-party defendants had a duty not to contaminate the environment. As a result of the contamination, the State has suffered injury for which it could have maintained an action for damages. The fact that injunctive relief, as opposed to damages, is sought does not convert the conduct into something other than tortious. We believe that a violation of the Act creates the potential for liability in tort and that it may be a proper predicate for a contribution claim. Therefore, we conclude that the subject to liability element of the Contribution Act, as it applies to Brockman and third-party defendants in the primary action, may be satisfied. Our determination that the statutory violations constitute tortious conduct obviates the need for us to consider third-party defendants' public nuisance argument. Third-party defendants next assert that there is no precedent in Illinois to expand liability for abatement of public nuisances to parties with no control over the site. They invite this court's attention to the oft-stated rule that liability for the pollution requires that the defendant be in control of the pollution either through ownership or control of the property. See New York v. Shore Realty Corp. (2d Cir.1985), 759 F.2d 1032; see also Perkinson v. Pollution Control Board (1989), 187 Ill. App.3d 689, 135 Ill.Dec. 333, 543 N.E.2d 901; Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Pollution Control Board (1979), 72 Ill.App.3d 217, 28 Ill.Dec. 453, 390 N.E.2d 620; Meadowlark Farms, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board (1974), 17 Ill.App.3d 851, 308 N.E.2d 829; Leslie Salt Co. v. San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Comm'n (1984), 153 Cal.App.3d 605, 200 Cal.Rptr. 575; United States v. A & F Materials Co. (1984), 578 F.Supp. 1249. The control argument is compelling, and we take no exception to the general rule as it is applied in original actions like those cases which we cite here. However, the differing policy interests attendant to our contribution statute require that we not regard control as the dominant consideration in cases such as the one before us. The Contribution Act is firmly rooted in principles of equity which seek to apportion liability for injury among tortfeasors based upon their relative culpability. By it, the legislature sought to avoid unfairly burdening a contributing tortfeasor with the total cost of an injury. So valued are principles of fairness and the avoidance of unjust enrichment that even if a person who might otherwise be immune has contributed as a cause to the injury he should be liable in contribution. This is so even though he cannot be directly liable to the plaintiff. See Clark, Comparative Contribution: The Legislative Enactment of the Skinner Doctrine, 14 J.Mar.L.Rev. 173, 193 (1980). Consistent with these basic notions, in Doyle v. Rhodes (1984), 101 Ill.2d 1, 14, 77 Ill.Dec. 759, 461 N.E.2d 382, in considering whether immunity was a bar to contribution, this court stated that the Contribution Act focuses, as it was intended to do, on the culpability of the parties rather than on the precise legal means by which the plaintiff is ultimately able to make each defendant compensate him for his loss. It there further stated, quoting Puller v. Puller (1955), 380 Pa. 219, 221, 110 A.2d 175, 177, [t]he theory is that as between the two tortfeasors the contribution is not a recovery for the tort but the enforcement of an equitable duty to share liability for the wrong done. (See also Giordano v. Morgan (1990), 197 Ill.App.3d 543, 143 Ill. Dec. 875, 554 N.E.2d 810; Joe & Dan International Corp. v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (1988), 178 Ill.App.3d 741, 127 Ill.Dec. 830, 533 N.E.2d 912.) Thus, if one person's wrongful conduct actually causes another's injury, he should, as a culpable party, be liable for contribution. These principles of equity support our conclusion that control does not operate to bar a contribution claim based on violations of the Act which create a public nuisance. Where a proper claim for contribution may be stated, the fact that a contributing polluter lacked control over the premises will not defeat that claim. By our holding we do not advocate total disregard of the issue of control, for it may properly be a consideration in the apportioning of fault. Finally, third-party defendants argue that the primary claim does not state that Brockman was negligent in violating the Act. Therefore, since only unintentional tortfeasors have a cause for contribution under the Contribution Act ( Gerill Corp. v. Jack L. Hargrove Builders, Inc. (1989), 128 Ill.2d 179, 131 Ill.Dec. 155, 538 N.E.2d 530), the third-party claim must fail. The general proposition is correct; however, we reject the conclusion. Our appellate court has generally held that intent is not an element in a cause of action for violations of the Act. (See Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Pollution Control Board (1979), 72 Ill.App.3d 217, 28 Ill.Dec. 453, 390 N.E.2d 620; Hindman v. Pollution Control Board (1976), 42 Ill.App.3d 766, 1 Ill.Dec. 481, 356 N.E.2d 669; Bath, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board (1973), 10 Ill.App.3d 507, 294 N.E.2d 778.) Here, there is no allegation in the primary complaint that the conduct complained of was intentional. However, whether the conduct of which the State complains is intentional, negligent or otherwise must, in the first instance, be determined in the trial court. (See Carl Sandburg Village Condominium Association No. 1 v. First Condominium Development Co. (1990), 197 Ill. App.3d 948, 953, 145 Ill.Dec. 476, 557 N.E.2d 246.) Absent either an allegation of intentional conduct or a requirement that intent is an element, we decline to conclude that intentional conduct was alleged. Finally, amid curiae argue that to allow owners/operators of waste sites to spread liability for dumping unpermitted waste creates the temptation for owners/operators to allow unpermitted waste to be dumped at a site without consequence to them. We believe that the opposite conclusion has equal validity. Transporters and generators, secure in the knowledge that they can escape liability for dumping unpermitted waste at a site, may be inclined to do so. We believe that the best safeguard for achieving and maintaining a healthful and clean environment is to hold all those who pollute responsible for their contributions. Moreover, we believe that the right to contribution is in perfect harmony with the purpose of the Act, which seeks to fix liability on those who create a situation which is harmful to our environment. We conclude that a properly pled cause of action for contribution based on violations of the Act is permissible. Therefore, we hold that the basis for the trial court's dismissal of Brockman's contribution claim was erroneous.