Hamilton v. Columbia Transmission, LLC
1:20-cv-00086
N.D.W. Va.Mar 17, 2022Background:
- Hamilton granted Columbia a perpetual easement (80-ft ROW) in 2016 for the XPress pipeline; Columbia contracted APC, which subcontracted to Maine Drilling, to construct Spread 3 across his property.
- Beginning May 2018, defendants conducted repeated blasting (≈30 blasts on the easement; closest blast ~160 ft from the house). Hamilton alleges contemporaneous vibrations and subsequent damage to house, well, septic, and yard, and that he and his wife relocated.
- Hamilton sued in 2020 asserting negligence, strict liability (for blasting), private nuisance, trespass and other claims; Linda Hamilton later died and was substituted; some claims (IIED, NIED, res ipsa as standalone counts) were earlier dismissed on summary judgment.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on negligence, strict liability, trespass, and private nuisance (joined motions by APC and Maine Drilling); plaintiff’s expert was later excluded but Hamilton relied on lay testimony and circumstantial proof of causation.
- The court found (after weighing the parties’ experts and lay testimony) that Hamilton produced sufficient circumstantial evidence (proximity of blasts, contemporaneous observation of damage, reports to Columbia) to raise a triable issue on causation.
- Holding in this Order: summary judgment DENIED as to negligence (Count I), strict liability (Count II), and private nuisance (Count III); ruling on trespass (Count IV) DEFERRED for further pretrial argument.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation for negligence & strict liability (blasting damage) | Lay testimony + proximity and contemporaneous onset of damage fairly raise inference that blasts caused harm | Seismograph readings and expert report show vibration levels too low; damages due to age/settlement/lack of maintenance | Court: Genuine dispute exists; circumstantial evidence sufficient to survive summary judgment (expert exclusion not fatal) |
| Applicability of res ipsa loquitur to negligence claim | Res ipsa may be used to infer negligence from blasting occurrences | Defendants: res ipsa inapplicable because plaintiff also pleads strict liability; other causes not eliminated | Court: Res ipsa may support negligence claim here; defendants’ reply argument waived and in any event disputed facts preclude summary judgment |
| Private nuisance (interference with use/enjoyment) | Alleged continuous, not merely temporary, physical harms (structural damage, well contamination, debris, vibrations) impair full use/enjoyment | Defendants: plaintiff was compensated by easement payment for construction inconvenience | Court: Denied summary judgment — alleged continuous damage supports nuisance claim and easement compensation did not cover the claimed long-term harms |
| Trespass (consent via easement) | Easement is silent on blasting; Hamilton asserts no meeting of minds as to blasting and would not have consented | Defendants: Easement granted construction rights and compensation — consent to entry and activities on ROW | Court: Ruling deferred — material factual dispute over whether easement encompassed blasting requires further pretrial resolution |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitney v. Ralph Myers Contracting Corp., 118 S.E.2d 622 (W. Va. 1961) (established that blasting causation may be proven circumstantially; plaintiffs need only raise an inference of causation).
- Peneschi v. Nat'l Steel Corp., 295 S.E.2d 1 (W. Va. 1982) (use of abnormally dangerous instrumentality subjects actor to strict liability).
- Rhodes v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 636 F.3d 88 (4th Cir. 2011) (elements of trespass and private nuisance summarized for possession/use interference).
- Frye v. Kanawha Stone Co., 505 S.E.2d 206 (W. Va. 1998) (upholding circumstantial proof of blasting causation where damage occurred contemporaneously and was reported).
- Kyle v. Dana Transport, Inc., 649 S.E.2d 287 (W. Va. 2007) (restate standards for res ipsa loquitur).