finding a public nuisance where gasoline spread from a tank system into groundwater
How later courts described this case
- finding a public nuisance where gasoline spread from a tank system into groundwater
- seller of gasoline cannot be liable for nuisance caused by another’s leaking of the gasoline; “[b]ecause a seller in a commercial transaction relinquishes ownership and control of its products when they are sold, *1214 it lacks the legal right to abate whatever hazards its products may pose”
- “A private citizen may file an action for a public nuisance against an actor where the individual can show he suffered a type of harm different from that of the general public.”
- in which we expressly rejected a claim that an accidental gasoline spill could constitute a trespass
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
White, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. There was a genuine issue whether the leak was caused by the backhoe operator. The backhoe operator denied any knowledge of striking the piping and stated that, on the basis of his experience, he would have known had it occurred. An inspector from the Department of Natural Resources denied seeing anything that indicated the connector piping had been struck during excavation and denied being so informed. Defendant Wykstra gave inconsistent accounts of the incident and the condition of the connector piping. Further, the contamination appeared to be quite extensive and beyond what might be expected from a leak that was immediately redressed. While tank tightness tests had been performed in 1986, these tests apparently only tested the integrity of the tanks and not the connectors. Lastly, there was evidence that Phillips designed and installed the system and *197 then covered it with asphalt or concrete and that the system remained undisturbed until the tank replacement activity. In short, there was evidence from which a jury could conclude that Phillips installed the flexible connector, which remained undisturbed and which leaked, causing contamination of plaintiffs’ property. 1 Because there was evidence from which a jury could conclude that Phillips created the condition that led to the leak, I conclude that summary disposition was inappropriate. 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 373, p 276; 4 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 840A, p 168. I would reverse with regard to the nuisance and negligence claims._
Further, there was some indication that the system was designed to have a flexible connector with metal meshing and the actual connector had none. Plaintiffs rely on drawings for the system to support this claim. While the drawings may be so interpreted, such an interpretation is not manifest.