Court Opinion

ID: 9666750
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:26:52.352793+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:32.536683
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. The majority has added insult to injury in my opinion. The facts clearly establish that the appellee oil company continues to maintain above ground oil storage facilities which do not meet the minimum safety standards of the State Fire Code. State Fire Marshal Ray Carnahan testified that since 1965 the Code has required that storage tanks for flammable liquids be placed underground. Testimony indicates these tanks were placed in their present above ground location sometime between 1970 and 1973. In any event, above ground tanks are required to have a dike large enough to contain the spill of the largest tank in the compound. The present concrete block retaining wall or dike does not meet the safety requirements of the Code for above ground storage tanks. The state fire marshal, after inspecting this dike stated: “There are cracks in the mortar joints. Some of the mortar has given way or dropped out — It needs to be bigger. It also needs to be repaired so there is not any cracks in the mortar.” The fire marshal has referred this matter to the attorney general for appropriate action. The local fire department has been called to the scene of these tanks at least nine times within a three year period. The danger of fire or explosion is ever present. Gasoline or diesel has overflowed onto the appellant’s property several times. After one such overflow the appellant felt compelled to resurface his driveway and parking area at a cost of $4,500. The dike has constant seepage and there is trash and grass which could easily cause a fire. The public, including school children, are constantly in the area and some even sit on the dike while waiting for the bus or other things. I feel no need to set out in detail additional testimony and evidence which seems to me to compel reversal of this case. I feel confident the trial court was clearly erroneous in refusing to enjoin this nuisance which may well cause serious injuries or death or at least great property damage. The evidence was more than sufficient to support the damage award and most certainly required an injunction.