City of Neodesha v. BP Corp. North America
287 P.3d 214
Kan.2012Background
- Class action by landowners alleging groundwater and subsurface soil contamination from a former Neodesha refinery; BP denied liability.
- Jury initially returned a verdict for BP; district court later granted judgment as a matter of law on strict liability and ordered a conditional new trial for damages.
- Dispute centered on whether water-contamination strict liability falls under the abnormally dangerous activities test or per se strict liability for water pollution.
- Trial court found the abnormally dangerous activity test governs, relying on Williams v. Amoco; appellate court cited Roger v. Ferrin in some analysis.
- Appellate process: BP sought interlocutory review of the strict liability judgment and conditional new trial; Court of Appeals granted review; Supreme Court granted review on merits.
- Supreme Court held that the abnormally dangerous activity test applies to water-contamination strict liability claims and reversed the judgment as a matter of law, reinstating the jury verdict for BP and remanding for final judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the abnormally dangerous activity test apply to water-contamination claims? | Plaintiff contends water contamination is per se strictly liable. | BP argues Williams' abnormally dangerous test governs all strict-liability claims, precluding per se liability for water contamination. | Yes; abnormally dangerous test governs water-contamination strict liability claims. |
| Was judgment as a matter of law appropriate on the strict liability claim? | Jury verdict should stand; BP’s remediation activities were abnormally dangerous. | Jury should not have determined strict liability; the evidence supported JMOL against BP. | No; jury verdict should be reinstated; JMOL improper. |
| Is the conditional new trial order proper on interlocutory review? | Conditional new trial is proper or at least reviewable independently of JMOL ruling. | Conditional new trial was improper beyond the JMOL issue. | Moot; conditional new trial affirmed only if JMOL upheld; reversed overall. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Amoco Production Co., 241 Kan. 102 (1987) (adopted abnormally dangerous activity test from Restatement §519-520)
- Roger v. Ferrin, 23 Kan. App. 2d 47 (1996) (water-contamination dicta used to distinguish strict liability approaches)
- Greene v. Product Mfg. Corp., 842 F. Supp. 1321 (D. Kan. 1993) (federal court endorsed WilliamsRestatement interpretation of strict liability)
- United Proteins, Inc. v. Farmland Industries, Inc., 259 Kan. 725 (1996) (reminder that pre-Williams strict-liability lines exist; importance of repose issues)
- Gilmore v. Salt Co., 84 Kan. 729 (1911) (early strict liability/pollution liability for groundwater percolation)
- Helms v. Oil Co., 102 Kan. 164 (1917) (Rylands non-natural use doctrine as precursor to abnormally dangerous doctrine)