Hamilton v. Columbia Transmission, LLC
1:20-cv-00086
N.D.W. Va.Mar 16, 2022Background
- Hamiltons granted Columbia an easement for the XPress pipeline (Spread 3) across their Doddridge County, WV property; Columbia contracted APC, which subcontracted part of the work to Maine Drilling.
- Beginning May 2018, Hamiltons allege defendants conducted blasting near their home without adequate notice or pre-blast surveys, causing structural damage, well contamination, and rubble on the right-of-way.
- Plaintiffs claim resulting property damage, loss of potable water, temporary relocation, and that Mrs. Hamilton’s health declined after moving; a subsequent wrongful-death claim was earlier dismissed.
- APC and Maine Drilling moved for summary judgment on multiple counts; APC joined Maine Drilling’s motion. The court reopened discovery narrowly to develop blasting-log evidence.
- The Court granted summary judgment for the moving defendants on Counts VI (res ipsa loquitur), IX (IIED), and X (NIED), and deferred ruling on the remaining claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Res ipsa loquitur (Count VI) | Res ipsa can be used to infer defendants' negligence from contemporaneous blasting-related damage | Res ipsa is an evidentiary doctrine, not an independent cause of action | Granted for defendants — res ipsa is not a standalone cause of action; plaintiff may still try to invoke it evidentially in negligence claim (court reserved ruling on that evidentiary use) |
| Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Count IX) | Defendants failed to give notice, did no pre-blast survey, provided inadequate responses to complaints, forced relocation, and caused Mrs. Hamilton’s decline | Conduct was not extreme or outrageous as required for IIED; plaintiff cannot meet high legal standard | Granted for defendants — alleged conduct not sufficiently atrocious or outrageous under WV law |
| Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (Count X) | Emotional harm and Mrs. Hamilton’s decline after relocation support NIED recovery | NIED recovery in WV is limited to narrow categories (e.g., witnessing close relative’s critical injury, exposure to disease, mishandling a corpse); no physical injury or qualifying circumstance here | Granted for defendants — facts do not fall within WV’s limited recognized NIED categories |
| Remaining tort and crossclaims (negligence, strict liability, trespass, private nuisance, indemnity, etc.) | Plaintiffs point to alleged property and well damage causally linked to blasting | Defendants challenge causation, sufficiency of proof, and other elements | Deferred — court did not resolve these claims on summary judgment at this time |
Key Cases Cited
- Crum v. Equity Inns, Inc., 685 S.E.2d 219 (W. Va. 2009) (res ipsa is an evidentiary rule, not an independent cause of action)
- Foster v. City of Keyser, 501 S.E.2d 165 (W. Va. 1997) (articulating the elements for invoking res ipsa loquitur)
- Kyle v. Dana Transport, Inc., 649 S.E.2d 287 (W. Va. 2007) (explaining when occurrences may suggest negligence under res ipsa)
- Travis v. Alcon Labs., Inc., 504 S.E.2d 419 (W. Va. 1998) (elements and high standard for IIED)
- Marlin v. Bill Rich Constr., Inc., 482 S.E.2d 620 (W. Va. 1996) (recognizing limited circumstances for NIED recovery)
- Ricottilli v. Summersville Mem'l Hosp., 425 S.E.2d 629 (W. Va. 1992) (NIED context: mishandling a corpse)
- Heldreth v. Marrs, 425 S.E.2d 157 (W. Va. 1992) (NIED context: witnessing close relative’s critical injury)
- Pegg v. Herrnberger, 845 F.3d 112 (4th Cir. 2017) (describing the particularly high burden for IIED claims)