912 F. Supp. 2d 156
D.N.J.2012Background
- Plaintiffs own and operate commercial property on Taylors Lane adjacent to a landfill operated by Defendants; groundwater contamination allegedly migrated onto the Corradetti Property.
- The Cinnaminson Superfund Site has treated groundwater via pump-and-treat systems, but contamination persists and is linked to arsenic, manganese, chloroform, and benzene levels.
- Plaintiffs allege Defendants failed to promptly control sources, begin remediation, or survey neighboring properties, and that remediation conducted was inadequate and cost-driven.
- Contaminants are detected in subslab soil and indoor air within buildings on the Corradetti Property, with alleged health risks from breathing contaminated air.
- Plaintiffs assert Defendants knew of health and property risks and allowed continued contamination, harming quality of life and property values; they seek various relief including damages and injunctions.
- Plaintiffs allege ten claims, including negligence, assault and battery, nuisance (private and public), negligent site remediation, and statutory violations under the Spill Act and WPCA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether assault and battery require intent to contaminate | Plaintiffs argue intent is unnecessary due to environmental contamination context. | Defendants contend assault and battery require intentional act toward contact or apprehension of contact. | Counts 2 dismissed for lack of pleaded intent; leave to amend. |
| Whether quality of life damages can stand as an independent claim | Plaintiffs treat quality of life as compensable under nuisance/property damage. | Quality of life damages are not an independent tort but a nuisance-derived damages category. | Count 4 struck; merged into private nuisance claim (Count 5). |
| Whether public nuisance claim has standing and is ripe for damages/injunction | Plaintiffs allege special injury from contaminated drinking water and property intrusion distinct from public harm. | Plaintiffs lack standing to enforce public groundwater rights and show special injury. | Count 6 denied; Plaintiffs meet standing and special injury; nuisance claims proceed. |
| Whether Spill Act and WPCA claims are ripe or must be dismissed | Plaintiffs reserve right to amend if claims become ripe. | Spill Act allows only cleanup/remediation costs; WPCA does not permit private actions. | Counts 9 and 10 dismissed without prejudice as unripe; potential for future amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mayor & Council of Borough of Alpine v. Brewster, 7 N.J. 42 (1951) (public nuisance requires special injury)
- In re Lead Paint Litig., 191 N.J. 405 (2007) (private nuisance damages require harm different from public)
- Rockaway v. Klockner & Klockner, 811 F. Supp. 1039 (D.N.J. 1993) (special injury rule for public nuisance standing)
- Philadelphia Elec. Co. v. Hercules, Inc., 762 F.2d 303 (3d Cir. 1985) (special injury requirement and damages under nuisance theory)
- Ayers v. Jackson Twp., 106 N.J. 557 (1987) (quality of life damages as compensation for property damage under nuisance)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. N.J. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 393 N.J. Super. 388 (App. Div. 2007) (trusteeship and damages for natural resources under Spill Act context)
- Caldwell v. KFC Corp., 958 F. Supp. 962 (D.N.J. 1997) (assault/battery require intentional touching or apprehension)
- Kelly v. County of Monmouth, 380 N.J. Super. 552 (App. Div. 2005) (assault concepts in New Jersey tort law)