Court Opinion

ID: 989322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:05:26.382145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:19:12.676198
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

DONALD G. STANCILL; PEGGY T.
STANCILL; KENNETH STANCILL;
BARBARA STANCILL; EDWARD DEAN
GRANT; WALLACE E. JONES; EDNA P.
JONES; ROY E. HUGHES; BRENDA B.
HUGHES; MARGIE L. GRANT; MARIAN
KITTLE; WILLIAM E. CLARK; WILLIAM
CORBETT, and wife; MARY CORBETT;
                                                                     No. 95-2560
JAMES S. CORBETT; ROXANNE
CORBETT,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY, INCORPORATED,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge.
(CA-91-59; CA-91-57; CA-91-56; CA-91-55; CA-91-136;
CA-91-62; CA-91-138; CA-91-61; CA-91-60; CA-91-137)

Argued: April 4, 1996

Decided: May 21, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and LAY,
Senior Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
COUNSEL

ARGUED: Anthony Zell Roisman, COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUS-
FELD & TOLL, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Raymond
Michael Ripple, Senior Counsel, E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS &
COMPANY, Wilmington, Delaware, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:
Richard Z. Lewis, COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL,
Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Marvin K. Blount, Jr., Greenville,
North Carolina; James F. Hopf, Greenville, North Carolina; Marvin
Schiller, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellants. Jonathan D. Sasser,
MOORE & VAN ALLEN, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellants and a number of other plaintiffs below not parties to
this appeal are property owners in the vicinity of a DuPont parts
washing facility. They brought this consolidated suit seeking compen-
satory and punitive damages on state law theories of trespass, nui-
sance, negligence, and strict liability,* claiming that DuPont's release,
over a period of 20 years, of wash water and gases allegedly contain-
ing hazardous substances caused a diminution in their property val-
ues, loss of use and enjoyment of that property, damage to their
quality of life, increased probability of disease in the future, probable
future contamination of the groundwater, and emotional distress.

The district court ordered all plaintiffs to have an expert analyze
their property for contaminants. Appellants are those plaintiffs whose
properties were found to contain no contaminants. The district court
granted summary judgment for DuPont against these particular plain-
_________________________________________________________________
*Appellants have abandoned their strict liability claims on appeal.

                     2
tiffs because, without physical damage to their own properties as
opposed to mere diminution of property value or emotional distress,
none of the causes of action -- trespass, nuisance per accidens, or
negligence -- can be sustained under North Carolina law.

We have read the briefs, heard oral argument, and given thorough
consideration to the parties' contentions. Finding no error in the opin-
ion of the court below, Grant v. E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.,
Inc., No. 4:91-CV-55-H (E.D. N.C., July 13, 1995), we affirm on the
reasoning of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

                    3