Sixth Gives Green Light to Environmental Tort Suit
Friday, November 2nd by Robert LoblawSmith v. Union Carbide Corp., 04-5323 (6th Cir., Nov. 2, 2007)
In a big decision at the intersection of tort law and environmental law, the Sixth Circuit is allowing a group of Kentucky homeowners to proceed with their claims that a nearby uranium enrichment plant brought down their property values.
The plant has been operating in Paducah since 1952, although both the ownership and the level of safety measures have varied over the years. In recent years, testing showed that the plant’s operations had contaminated the local groundwater, surface water, and soil. Cleanup efforts have been ongoing since 1988.
The plaintiffs are sixteen homeowners who live within ten miles of the plant. They filed suit in 1997, claiming that the radiological contamination of the area had interfered with the use and enjoyment of their homes and had lowered their property values. They alleged that the plant’s various owners are liable for contaminating their land under intentional trespass and private nuisance theories. They also claimed strict liability. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, reasoning that the contamination was not severe enough to impact the plaintiffs’ health and therefore was not actionable.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit decided to let the Kentucky Supreme Court sort out the tort issues, which is often the kiss of death for defendants in a diversity suit. And that’s how it plays out here: based on the Kentucky court’s guidance, the Sixth Circuit concludes that there are genuine issues for trial on each of the plaintiffs’ claims. However, it notes that the defendants may still have a viable argument that the plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by federal law.
