City of Neodesha v. BP Corp. North America, Inc.
334 P.3d 830
Kan. Ct. App.2014Background
- City of Neodesha and a class of property owners sued BP (owner of a closed Neodesha refinery) alleging groundwater/soil contamination and seeking damages and injunctive relief; claims included negligence, strict liability (abnormally dangerous activity), nuisance, trespass, K.S.A. 65-6203, unjust enrichment, fraud, and breach of contract.
- After a 17-week jury trial the jury returned verdicts for BP on all counts; the trial court granted JMOL on strict liability but the Kansas Supreme Court reversed (Neodesha I) and remanded; district court ultimately entered judgment for BP and denied plaintiffs’ new-trial motions.
- Plaintiffs appealed the district court’s denial of a posttrial motion for a new trial, raising claims of legal error (including strict liability as a matter of law), jury misconduct, instructional error, discovery/evidentiary rulings, and trial-court discretion abuses.
- Central factual/legal disputes: whether BP’s remediation (or failure to investigate/remove contamination) constituted an "abnormally dangerous" activity giving rise to strict liability; whether contamination constituted trespass or continuing trespass; and whether various evidentiary and procedural rulings prejudiced Plaintiffs.
- The district court held many discretionary hearings (including ex parte juror interviews per Rule 181), made rulings about privilege and production (attorney-client/work product), allowed certain lay-opinion testimony and expert testimony, and declined extreme sanctions for late production.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strict liability (abnormally dangerous activity) — JMOL | BP’s storage/remediation of hazardous pollutants is per se abnormally dangerous; JMOL should be granted for Plaintiffs | Law-of-the-case and fact disputes preclude JMOL; Plaintiffs failed to plead/formally move under Restatement §520 factors | Denied — Plaintiffs did not preserve a JMOL under the §520 factors; Neodesha I already found disputed facts, so jury verdict stands |
| Jury misconduct / recall of jury | Juror allegations of bullying, failure to review exhibits, vote-switching after recess required recalling full jury and new trial | No extraneous influence; district court properly investigated with juror interviews and affidavits; Plaintiffs withdrew recall motion | Denied — no substantial prejudice or fundamental failure; recalling entire jury unnecessary and Plaintiffs waived full recall request |
| Jury instructions (multiple: claims, negligence, strict liability, nuisance, trespass, K.S.A.65-6203) | Instructions omitted Plaintiffs’ preferred language (e.g., "investigate"), created confusion, and effectively directed verdicts | Plaintiffs invited much instruction language at conference; many objections not timely preserved; instructions read as a whole were substantially correct | Denied — errors not clearly erroneous or prejudicial; invited error and lack of contemporaneous objections limit review |
| Privilege / discovery ("Book of Common Prayer", privilege logs, settlement "wish lists") | Trial court erred in sustaining BP privileges and in compelling/allowing admission of pre-suit settlement/wish-list documents | Court conducted in-camera review, limited use, and permitted relevant, nonprivileged materials; work-product and crime-fraud not shown | Denied — trial court did not abuse discretion; record designation by Plaintiffs inadequate to review some items; admission of lists not prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Neodesha v. BP Corp. N. Am., 295 Kan. 298 (Kan. 2014) (Supreme Court ruling adopting Restatement §§519–520 for water-contamination strict liability and finding facts disputed)
- Wolfe Elec., Inc. v. Duckworth, 293 Kan. 375 (Kan. 2011) (standard for appellate review where verdict challenged as contrary to evidence)
- Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (U.S. 1987) (juror testimony to impeach verdict barred except for extraneous influences)
- McDonald v. Pless, 238 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1915) (policy reasons for shielding jury deliberations from inquiry)
- United Proteins, Inc. v. Farmland Indus., 259 Kan. 725 (Kan. 1996) (trespass based on intrusion of foreign matter requires intent or substantial-certainty knowledge)