Harris County v. International Paper Company
01-15-00354-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 13, 2015Background
- IP dumped dioxin-contaminated sludge in pits along the San Jacinto River in the 1960s; the pits leaked and the site became a dioxin “hot spot.”
- EPA designated the Site a Superfund site in 2008; EPA orders and ongoing remediation followed.
- Harris County sued IP for civil penalties under Texas Water Code and Texas Administrative Code for endangerment, nuisance, and discharge-related violations.
- The trial court refused to submit Harris County’s endangerment and nuisance jury questions and ruled IP ceased owning the sludge in 1966.
- IP challenged ownership as a matter of law, asserting transfer of ownership or fixture status, while Harris County litigated ownership as a contested issue.
- Jury ultimately found for IP; final judgment awarded nothing to Harris County and IP’s costs were taxed against Harris County.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Endangerment/nuisance submission to jury | Harris County argued evidence supported endangerment and nuisance claims. | IP contended evidence insufficient and that Havner applies. | Trial court erred by not submitting issues to the jury. |
| Exclusion of health-risk evidence | Harris County contends government reports and experts on dioxin danger should be admitted. | IP argued Havner requires doubling-of-risk evidence. | Havner not controlling in government environmental penalty context; exclusion reversible error. |
| Ownership of the sludge | Ownership remained disputed; IP did not conclusively abandon sludge. | IP argued ownership transferred by operation of law or fixture theory. | Trial court erred in instructing no ownership after 1966; ownership issue for the jury. |
| Liability for disposal as a discharge | Disposition of sludge caused discharge/nuisance per Texas Administrative Code. | IP contends disposal did not establish liability absent ownership transfer. | Liability questions should have been submitted; trial error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Merck & Co. v. Garza, 347 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2011) (causation and expert testimony standards in toxic-tort contexts)
- Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1997) (doubling-of-the-risk causation standard in toxic-tort cases)
- Elbaor v. Smith, 845 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. 1992) (standards for exclusion of evidence; abuse of discretion and reversible error)
- Thota v. Young, 366 S.W.3d 678 (Tex. 2012) (limits on admissibility; harm analysis for charge errors)
- Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Williams, 85 S.W.3d 162 (Tex. 2002) (standards for reviewing jury instruction errors)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (de novo standard for legal determinations; abuse-of-discretion review)