Burley v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co.
2012 MT 28
Mont.2012Background
- U.S. District Court certified a Montana continuing-tort question about tolling for stabilized yet migrating contamination from BNSF's Livingston Yard.
- Pollutants migrated to adjacent land, groundwater, soil, and air, prompting CECRA remediation and monitoring by DEQ
- Property Owners asserted nuisance, trespass, and related claims seeking damages for contaminated properties.
- Montana cases historically distinguish temporary vs. permanent nuisances; abatement ability shapes classification and tolling.
- Magistrate Judge Ostby found contamination stabilized in concentration but still migrated; recommended not tolling without abatement analysis.
- Montana Supreme Court ultimately held that stabilization with ongoing migration tolls limitations until abatement is no longer reasonably possible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether stabilized but continuing migration tolls under continuing-tort doctrine | Burley/Nelson/Merideth contend migration keeps tolling alive. | BNSF argues stabilization plus migration do not toll; focus on final abatement. | Yes; continuing-tort toll applies while migration remains abatable and the nuisance is not permanent. |
| What abatement standard applies to determine temporary vs. permanent nuisance | abatement can be partial if reasonably achievable; total removal not required. | abatement must be readily/easily achievable to avoid tolling. | Reasonably abatable standard; abaration factors include cost, feasibility, and realism of remediation. |
| Whether continued migration alone can constitute a continuing tort under Montana law | Migration itself yields a new actionable injury each day. | Migration is not a new act if the tortfeasor could abate the nuisance. | Migration can support a continuing temporary nuisance where abatement is reasonably possible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graveley v. Scherping, 240 Mont. 20, 782 P.2d 371 (1989), 782 P.2d 371 (Mont. 1989) (stabilization discussed; continuing nuisance if abatable)
- Graveley v. Scherping, Graveley II, 247 Mont. 310, 806 P.2d 29 (1991), 806 P.2d 30 (Mont. 1991) (abatement by fence; continuing nuisance depends on abatement)
- Shors v. Branch, 221 Mont. 390, 720 P.2d 329 (1986), 720 P.2d 329 (Mont. 1986) (gate removal as abatement; continuing nuisance)
- Knight v. Missoula, 252 Mont. 237, 827 P.2d 1272 (1992), 827 P.2d 1272 (Mont. 1992) (abatement via curative action; continuing nuisance)
- Walton v. City of Bozeman, 179 Mont. 351, 588 P.2d 518 (1978), 588 P.2d 521 (Mont. 1978) (curative action can abate nuisance; continuing and temporary)
- Haugen Trust v. Walker, 204 Mont. 508, 665 P.2d 1132 (1983), 665 P.2d 1132 (Mont. 1983) (nuisance apparently abatable; abatement essential)
- Nelson v. C&C Plywood Corp., 154 Mont. 414, 465 P.2d 314 (1970), 465 P.2d 314 (Mont. 1970) (continuing temporary nuisance from glue waste)
- Montana Pole & Treating Plant v. I.F. Laucks & Co., 993 F.2d 676, 993 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1993) (limits continuing-tort theory when polluter controls; abatement)
- Arcade Water Dist. v. United States, 940 F.2d 1265, 1269 (9th Cir. 1991) (continuing nuisance approach in migration context)
- Mangini v. Aerojet-General Corp., 912 P.2d 1220, 912 P.2d 1220 (Cal. 1996) (abatable standard; permanency not assumed)
- Hoery v. United States, 64 P.3d 214, 64 P.3d 214 (Colo. 2003) (ongoing presence and migration constitute continuing tort)