Gilbert v. Synagro Central, LLC
90 A.3d 37
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Residents own or reside on properties adjacent to a 220-acre farm in New Freedom, York County, Pennsylvania, owned by Phillips since 1986; Phillips operates Hilltop Farms on the property; Troyer has leased portions of the farmland since 2008 to plant and harvest crops; Synagro contracts with municipalities to recycle and transport biosolids and obtained a PaDEP permit in 2005 to provide land application and long-term storage services at Hilltop Farm; approximately 11,635 wet tons of biosolids were applied to Farm fields from March 2006 to April 2009; residents alleged odors and health hazards and sought injunctive relief, damages, and costs.
- Farm Parties monitored by PaDEP and York County Solid Waste Authority, with three notices of violation (none involving odors) and suspension of biosolids use in October 2009; Residents filed two complaints in July 2008, consolidated in 2008, later amended in 2010 with three counts (nuisance, negligence, trespass) arising from biosolids activities.
- The trial court initially denied summary judgment (Oct. 14, 2011) finding unresolved issues of whether biosolids use qualifies as a “normal agricultural operation” under RTFA; after discovery, the court granted summary judgment in part (Dec. 28, 2012) on statute of repose and failure to plead prima facie negligence/trespass.
- The Residents appealed asserting (i) RTFA 954(a) bars nuisance claim and (ii) failure to plead prima facie negligence/trespass; the standard of review for summary judgment is de novo with genuine issues of material fact resolved in the non-moving party's favor; the Majority ultimately finds issues of material fact about whether biosolids use was a “normal agricultural operation.”
- RTFA provisions: 3 P.S. § 951 policy; § 954(a) one-year nuisance action limitation with reset upon a substantial change, and requirement that the action target a “normal agricultural operation”; 3 P.S. § 952 defines “normal agricultural operation.”
- The case proceeded to decide whether the biosolids use constitutes a “normal agricultural operation” and whether a substantial change reset the one-year period, with evidence on odors, regulatory oversight, and expert testimony on management practices.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RTFA 954(a) bars the nuisance claim. | Residents contend biosolids use was a substantial change and not a normal operation. | Farm Parties argue biosolids use is a normal agricultural operation and the one-year repose applies. | Material facts exist; not barred at summary judgment. |
| Whether Residents pleaded prima facie negligence and trespass. | Residents allege nuisance-derived injuries and seek damages; some trespass claims remain viable. | Farm Parties assert no duty to maintain odors; most trespass claims are waived on appeal. | Negligence claims affirmed as not establishing duty; four trespass claims survive for factual development. |
Key Cases Cited
- Home v. Haladay, 728 A.2d 954 (Pa. Super. 1999) (RTFA 954(a) one-year repose can bar later nuisance suits after substantial change)
- Kramer v. Pittsburgh Coal Co., 341 Pa. 379 (1939) (nuisance requires use resulting in material annoyance; distinguishes nuisance from trespass)
- East Brunswick Twp. v. Commonwealth Court, 956 A.2d 1100 (Pa. Cmvwlth. 2008) (whether biosolids use is a normal agricultural operation is factual, not legal, under RTFA Act 38)
- McConnaughey v. Building Components, Inc., 536 Pa. 95 (1994) (genuine issues of material fact may preclude summary judgment under a statute of repose)
- Pridgen v. Parker Hannifin Corp., 974 A.2d 1166 (Pa. Super. 2009) (issues of fact may preclude interlocutory appeal on repose applicability)