Daily Development for Tuesday, July 1, 2008
by:
Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC
School of Law
Of Counsel: Husch Blackwell Sanders
Kansas City,
Missouri
dirt@umkc.edu
NUISANCE; “STIGMA:” The escape of
natural gas from a facility, and a resulting explosion, although actionable by
parties in fact injured through damage or interference with use, cannot sustain
a judgment of liability to property of nearby residents who sustained no such
injury, simply because of the perceived stigma among the land-buying
public.
Smith v. Kansas Gas Service Co., 169 P.3d 1052
(Kan. 2007)
After explosions and geysers of gas and brine
occurred at various locations in the city of Hutchinson, Kansas, experts
determined that the source of the problem was natural gas escaping from the well
casing that was part of a natural gas storage facility located near the
city. The escaped gas had purportedly migrated through a porous geologic
formation and had risen to the surface in the city through abandoned brine wells
that were not properly plugged. After the incidents, deep well vents were
installed to allow the gas to escape into the atmosphere.
Various
property and business owners settled their damage claims against the storage
facility, but a class of property owners whose property had not suffered
physical damage brought action claiming loss of the quiet enjoyment of their
property. Eventually it was determined that no actual physical intrusion,
interference or injury had occurred on any of the plaintiff properties.
Witnesses at trial testified as to difficulty in selling their properties.
The plaintiffs obtained a jury verdict for nearly $8 million dollars of damages,
but this was all reversed by the state supreme court on
appeal.
The Kansas Supreme Court noted that no evidence
established loss of market value based on any physical injury to the real
property or on any interference with the use and enjoyment of the
property. Instead, the testimony as to loss of market value was based on a
perceived stigma or fear among the buying public, whether or not the fear was
factually or scientifically justified. Although stigma damages are
recognized in Kansas, it is only in cases where the property has sustained
physical injury as a result of the defendant’s conduct. Thus, in Kansas a
property owner cannot collect damages, under either a negligence or nuisance
theory, for diminution in property value caused by stigma or market fear
relating to accidental contamination when neither injury to nor interference
with the property has occurred.
Comment 1: The case is
significant because Kansas has precedent awarding “stigma” damages for perceived
danger of electromagnetic interference as part of an eminent domain claim.
This is the minority rule nationwide, and indicates that Kansas is somewhat more
receptive to the notion of “stigma” claims. But the claim didn’t work
here.
Comment 2: The court cites decisions from a number of other
jurisdictions that also have denied stigma claims. Interestingly, it cites
no authority for the contrary position, although plaintiffs were represented by
competent counsel and one assumes would have brought such authority to the
court’s attention if it existed. Cases cited in agreement with the
principle case include authority from Arkansas, California, Kentucky, Michigan,
Mississippi, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Utah.
The reporter
for this item was Professor David Thomas of the BYU Law School. The
comments are the editor’s.
Items reported here and in the ABA
publications
are for general information purposes only and
should
not be relied upon in the course of
representation or in the forming of
decisions in
legal matters. The same is true of
all
commentary provided by contributors to the DIRT
list.
Accuracy of data and opinions expressed
are the sole responsibility of
the DIRT editor
and are in no sense the publication of the
ABA.
Parties posting messages to DIRT are posting to
a
source that is readily accessible by members of
the general
public, and should take that fact
into account in evaluating
confidentiality
issues.
ABOUT DIRT:
DIRT is
an internet discussion group for serious
real estate professionals.
Message volume varies,
but commonly runs 5 to 15 messages per work
day.
Daily Developments are posted every work day.
To
subscribe, send the message
subscribe Dirt [your
name]
to
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
To
cancel your subscription, send the message
signoff DIRT to the
address:
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
for
information on other commands, send the message
Help to the listserv
address.
DIRT has an alternate, more extensive coverage that
includes not only
commercial and general real estate matters but also
focuses specifically upon
residential real estate matters. Because
real estate brokers generally find
this service more valuable, it is
named “BrokerDIRT.” But residential
specialist attorneys, title
insurers, lenders and others interested in the
residential market will
want to subscribe to this alternative list. If you
subscribe to
BrokerDIRT, it is not necessary also to subscribe to DIRT, as
BrokerDIRT
carries all DIRT traffic in addition to the residential
discussions.
To subscribe to BrokerDIRT, send the
message
subscribe BrokerDIRT [your
name]
to
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
To
cancel your subscription to BrokerDIRT, send the message
signoff
BrokerDIRT to the
address:
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
DIRT is a
service of the American Bar Association
Section on Real Property, Probate
& Trust Law and
the University of Missouri, Kansas City,
School
of Law. Daily Developments are copyrighted by
Patrick
A. Randolph, Jr., Professor of Law, UMKC
School of Law, but Professor
Randolph grants
permission for copying or distribution of
Daily
Developments for educational purposes,
including
professional continuing education, provided that
no
charge is imposed for such distribution and
that appropriate credit is
given to Professor
Randolph, DIRT, and its sponsors.
DIRT
has a WebPage at:
https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://cctr.umkc.edu/dept/dirt/