Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical Corp.
Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical Corp. | |
---|---|
Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit |
Full case name | Woodrow Sterling, et al. v. Velsicol Chemical Corporation |
Decided | August 29, 1988 |
Citation(s) | 855 F.2d 1188; 27 ERC 1985; 55 USLW 2719; 11 Fed.R.Serv.3d 213; 18 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,978, 19 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,404; 26 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1037 |
Case history | |
Prior history | 647 F. Supp. 303 (W.D. Tenn. 1986) |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | Pierce Lively, Nathaniel R. Jones, Ralph B. Guy, Jr. |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Guy, joined by Lively |
Concurrence | Jones |
Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical Corp., 855 F.2d 1188 (6th Cir. 1988),[1] was an environmental lawsuit filed by citizens of Hardeman County, Tennessee, led by Steven Sterling, who sued Velsicol Chemical Corporation for contaminating their water supply through improper disposal of toxic chemicals.
Background
In August 1964, Velsicol Chemical Corporation acquired 242 acres (0.98 km2) of rural land in Hardeman County, Tennessee. Velsicol used the site as a landfill for by-products from the production of chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides at its Memphis, Tennessee, chemical manufacturing facility. Before Velsicol purchased the landfill site and commenced depositing chemicals into the ground, it neither conducted hydrogeological studies to assess the soil composition underneath the site, the water flow direction, and the location of the local water aquifer, nor drilled a monitoring well to detect and record any ongoing contamination. From October, 1964, to June, 1973, the defendant deposited a total of 300,000 55-gallon steel drums containing ultrahazardous liquid chemical waste and hundreds of fiber board cartons containing ultrahazardous dry chemical waste in the landfill.
Shortly after Velsicol began its disposal operations at the landfill site, local residents and county, state, and federal authorities became concerned about the environmental impact of their activities. As a result of this concern, the United States Geological Survey (USGS), in 1967, prepared the first of several reports on the potential contamination effects of the chemicals deposited into the landfill up to that time. The 1967 report indicated that chlorinated hydrocarbons had migrated down into the subsoil and had contaminated portions of the surface and subsurface environment adjacent to the disposal site. While the chemicals had not reached the local water aquifer, the USGS concluded that both the local and contiguous ground water were in danger of contamination.
State authorities increasingly became concerned about Velsicol's disposal of ultrahazardous chemicals at the site. In 1972, the state filed an administrative action to close the landfill because the chlorinated hydrocarbons buried at the site allegedly were contaminating irreparably the subsurface waters. The state ordered Velsicol to cease disposal of all toxic chemicals by August 21, 1972, and all other chemicals by June 1, 1973.
U.S. District Court case
In 1978, forty-two plaintiffs sued Velsicol in the Circuit Court of Hardeman County, Tennessee, for damages and an injunction. The complaint sought $1.5 billion in compensatory damages and $1 billion in punitive damages. Velsicol had the case moved to the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, seeking a diversity of citizens based on the amount of damages being sought. All but fifteen of the original forty-two plaintiffs then settled their claims. Plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended complaint for damages and an injunction and added forty-seven new plaintiffs to the original lawsuit.
The complaint sought relief for involuntary exposure to certain chemical substances known to cause cancer, affect the central nervous system and permanently damage other organs of the human body, and for loss of value to their real property in the region affected by the chemicals.
The district court found Velsicol liable to the plaintiffs on legal theories of strict liability, common law negligence, trespass, and nuisance.[2] The court concluded that the defendant's hazardous chemicals, which escaped from its landfill and contaminated plaintiffs' well water, were the proximate cause of the representative plaintiffs' injuries. The district court awarded the five individuals compensatory damages totaling $5,273,492.50 for their respective injuries, plus prejudgment interest dating back to July, 1965, of $8,964,973.25. All damages, except for $48,492.50 to one plaintiff for property damage claims, were awarded for personal injuries. The district court also awarded $7,500,000 in punitive damages to the class as a whole.[2]
Appeal
Velsicol appealed the decision to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on the basis that the District Court certified the case as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3). Velsicol argued that individual issues, such as proximate cause and damages, predominated over common issues, so that the District court erred in its classification. The Appeals Court ruled that as long as the defendant's liability can be determined on a class-wide basis because the cause of the disaster is a single course of conduct which is identical for each of the plaintiffs. The Appeals Court reversed the District court's decision to defer its award punitive damages prior to determining compensatory damages for the entire class of 128 individuals; and remanded the recomputation of punitive damages
Environmental damage
It was determined that spent hydrocarbons buried at the landfill disposal site included chlorobenzene, carbon tetrachloride, chloroformhexachlorobutadiene, hexachloroethane, hexachloronorbornadiene, naphthalene, tetrachloroethylene, toluene, hexachlorocyclopentadiene, and benzene. The drums and cartons containing these chemicals were deposited in trenches that were 15 feet (4.6 m) deep and 12 to 15 feet (4.6 m) wide and covered with approximately 3 feet (0.91 m) of soil. Velsicol took no precautions to insure the drums from bursting and, invariably, some of the drums would leak their contents into the soil. Furthermore, the trenches were neither lined nor covered with any impermeable material to prevent the chemical waste from leaking into the soil. Velsicol eventually placed a clay cap over the landfill site in 1980 only after state authorities threatened a lawsuit over the imminent danger the landfill posed to the environment.
See also
References
- ^ Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical Corp., 855 F.2d 1188 (6th Cir. 1988).
- ^ a b Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical Corp., 647 F. Supp. 303 (W.D. Tenn. 1986).
External links
- Text of Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical Corp., 855 F.2d 1188 (6th Cir. 1988) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Justia OpenJurist
- v
- t
- e
decisions
- Missouri v. Holland (1920)
- Sierra Club v. Morton (1972)
- Vermont Yankee v. NRDC (1978)
- Hughes v. Oklahoma (1979)
- Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation (1990)
- Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (2000)
- BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (2021)
federal legislation,
treaties,
and lower court
decisions
- Yellowstone National Park Protection Act (1872)
- Forest Service Organic Administration Act (1897)
- Rivers and Harbors Act (1899)
- Lacey Act (1900)
- Weeks Act (1911)
- North Pacific Fur Seal Convention of 1911 (1911)
- Weeks–McLean Act (1913)
- Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)
- Clarke–McNary Act (1924)
- Oil Pollution Act (1924)
- McSweeney-McNary Act (1928)
- Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1934)
- Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (1954)
- Air Pollution Control Act (1955)
- Fish and Wildlife Act (1956)
- Oil Pollution Act (1961)
- Clean Air Act (1963, 1970, 1977, 1990)
- Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission (2nd Cir. Court of Appeals, 1965)
- Solid Waste Disposal Act (1965)
- Endangered Species Act (1969)
- Environmental Quality Improvement Act (1970)
- National Environmental Policy Act (1970)
- Clean Water Act (1972, 1977, 1987, 2014)
- Coastal Zone Management Act (1972)
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (1972)
- Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (1972)
- Noise Control Act (1972)
- Endangered Species Act (1973)
- Oil Pollution Act (1973)
- Safe Drinking Water Act (1974, 1986, 1996)
- Water Resources Development Act (1974, 1976, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2007, 2014, 2016, 2022)
- Federal Noxious Weed Act (1975)
- Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (1975)
- Magnuson–Stevens Act (1976)
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976)
- Toxic Substances Control Act (1976)
- Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (1977)
- Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (1978)
- CERCLA (Superfund) (1980)
- Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (1986)
- Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986)
- Global Change Research Act (1990)
- National Environmental Education Act (1990)
- Oil Pollution Act (1990)
- Alien Species Prevention and Enforcement Act of 1992
- Food Quality Protection Act (1996)
- Energy Policy Act (2005)
- Energy Independence and Security Act (2007)
- Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. EPA (D.C. Cir. Court of Appeals, 2012)
- Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (2016)
- America's Water Infrastructure Act (2018)
- Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (2021)
- Louisiana v. Biden (5th Cir. Court of Appeals, 2022)
- CHIPS and Science Act (2022)
- Inflation Reduction Act (2022)
and concepts
- Best available technology
- Citizen suit
- Clean Power Plan
- Corporate average fuel economy
- Discharge Monitoring Report
- Effluent guidelines
- Environmental crime
- Environmental impact statement
- Environmental justice
- Executive Order 13432 (2007)
- Executive Order 13990 (2022)
- LDV Rule (2010)
- Maximum contaminant level
- National Ambient Air Quality Standards
- National Climate Assessment
- National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
- National Priorities List
- New Source Performance Standards
- New Source Review
- Not-To-Exceed (NTE)
- PACE financing
- Presidential Climate Action Plan
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Right to know
- Section 608 Certification
- Significant New Alternatives Policy
- State of the Climate
- Tailoring Rule (2010)
- Total maximum daily load
- Toxicity category rating
- Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action