Neal v. Greenfields Irrigation District
4:21-cv-00106
D. Mont.Nov 20, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs are landowners/trustees seeking damages due to erosion and sedimentation from water flows managed by Greenfields Irrigation District (GID) and Fort Shaw Irrigation District (FSID).
- The litigation alleges continuing environmental torts stemming from the operation and maintenance of the WCFC (Western Canal Feeder Canal).
- Three motions for summary judgment were pending: GID sought to preclude restoration damages, FSID argued a settlement barred liability, and GID sought to limit damages to those within the statutory limitations period.
- The plaintiffs seek restoration damages, claiming personal reasons for restoring the property, including future family use.
- The parties dispute how the continuing tort doctrine and settlement agreements affect recovery and available measures of damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of Restoration Damages | Plaintiffs have personal reasons and temporary injury justifying restoration damages. | Damages improper because erosion pre-existed, and restoration is untested or excessive. | Denied GID's motion; jury must decide if restoration damages are appropriate. |
| Effect of FSID-GID Settlement on FSID’s Liability | Settlement agreement does not bar claims for FSID’s own negligence. | FSID cannot be liable due to terms of settlement agreement with GID. | Denied FSID’s motion; agreement does not clearly preclude third-party liability. |
| Statute of Limitations under Continuing Tort Doctrine | Limitation period cap does not bar restoration damages. | Damages must be limited to statutory period before action; no carve-out for restoration. | Granted in part; damages capped at 5 years before suit, but did not limit restoration damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sunburst Sch. Dist. No. 2 v. Texaco, Inc., 165 P.3d 1079 (Mont. 2007) (restoration damages available for temporary injuries and personal reasons)
- Lampi v. Speed, 261 P.3d 1000 (Mont. 2011) (fact questions on temporary injury and personal reasons for restoration)
- McEwen v. MCR, LLC, 291 P.3d 1253 (Mont. 2012) (personal reasons and temporary injury are jury questions)
- Burley v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 273 P.3d 825 (Mont. 2012) (reasonableness of abatement is for the fact-finder)
- Christian v. Atl. Richfield Co., 358 P.3d 131 (Mont. 2015) (continuing tort doctrine limits recovery to statutory period before suit)
- Corp. Air v. Edwards Jet Ctr., 190 P.3d 1111 (Mont. 2008) (ambiguous contract provisions preclude summary judgment)