Gilbert, R. v. Synagro Central Aplts
131 A.3d 1
| Pa. | 2015Background
- Plaintiffs allege nuisance, negligence, and trespass based on land applying biosolids to Hilltop Farms from 2006-2009.
- Biosolids application caused strong odors and purported health effects; regulators issued notices of violation but not for odors.
- The trial court granted summary judgment on nuisance claims under RTFA §954(a), deeming biosolids a normal agricultural operation.
- Superior Court reversed, holding issues of normalcy and the statute’s applicability should be resolved by a jury.
- This Court granted review to resolve whether §954(a) is a legal question for courts and whether biosolids use is a normal agricultural operation.
- The Court holds §954(a) is a statute of repose to be decided as a legal issue by the court and biosolids use is a normal agricultural operation under §952, thus barring nuisance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is §954(a) a statute of repose for courts, not juries? | Appellees contend it is not jurisdictional; issues of applicability may involve fact-finding. | Appellants contend §954(a) is a jurisdictional statute of repose; its applicability is a legal question for the court. | Yes; §954(a) is a legal question for the court. |
| Are biosolids land applications a 'normal agricultural operation' under §952? | Appellees argue biosolids use is not a normal operation and not encompassed by the RTFA. | Appellants argue biosolids use is a normal agricultural operation within the RTFA's broad scope. | Yes; biosolids land use is a normal agricultural operation. |
| If substantial change occurred, does it reset the one-year repose period? | Appellees contend there is no lawful reset; otherwise the repose would be illusory. | Appellants contend a substantial change resets the one-year period per RTFA interpretation. | Yes; a substantial change resets the one-year period. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abrams v. Pneumo Abex Corp., 602 Pa. 627 (Pa. 2009) (distinguishes statute of repose from limitations; jurisdictional issue is legal)
- Gilbert v. Synagro Cent., LLC, 628 Pa. 4 (Pa. 2014) (RTFA interpretation of §954(a) as applying to biosolids; per curiam decision)
- McConnaughey v. Bldg. Components, Inc., 536 Pa. 95 (Pa. 1994) (statute of repose applicability where facts raise dispute about involvement in construction)
- Pridgen v. Parker Hannifin Corp., 974 A.2d 1166 (Pa. Super. 2009) (repose act considerations with potential misrepresentations exception)
- Stewart v. Precision Airmotive, LLC, 7 A.3d 266 (Pa. Super. 2010) (summary judgment on repose where fact questions remain)
- E. Brunswick Twp. v. Commonwealth, 956 A.2d 1100 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) ( Act 38 normal agricultural operation analysis; biosolids context)