Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical Corp
Encyclopedia
Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical Corp., 855 F2d 1188 (6th Cir. 1988) was an environmental law
suit filed by citizens of Hardeman County, Tennessee
, led by Steven Sterling, who sued Velsicol Chemical Corporation
for contaminating their water supply through improper disposal of toxic chemicals.
Shortly after Velsicol began its disposal operations at the landfill site, local residents and county, state, and federal authorities became concerned about the environmental impact of their activities. As a result of this concern, the United States Geological Survey (USGS), in 1967, prepared the first of several reports on the potential contamination effects of the chemicals deposited into the landfill up to that time. The 1967 report indicated that chlorinated hydrocarbons had migrated down into the subsoil and had contaminated portions of the surface and subsurface environment adjacent to the disposal site. While the chemicals had not reached the local water aquifer, the USGS concluded that both the local and contiguous ground water were in danger of contamination.
State authorities increasingly became concerned about Velsicol's disposal of ultrahazardous chemicals at the site. In 1972, the state filed an administrative action to close the landfill because the chlorinated hydrocarbons buried at the site allegedly were contaminating irreparably the subsurface waters. The state ordered Velsicol to cease disposal of all toxic chemicals by August 21, 1972, and all other chemicals by June 1, 1973.
The complaint sought relief for involuntary exposure to certain chemical substances known to cause cancer, affect the central nervous system and permanently damage other organs of the human body, and for loss of value to their real property in the region affected by the chemicals.
The district court found Velsicol liable to the plaintiffs on legal theories of strict liability
, common law negligence
, trespass
, and nuisance
. The court concluded that the defendant's hazardous chemicals, which escaped from its landfill and contaminated plaintiffs' well water, were the proximate cause of the representative plaintiffs' injuries. The district court awarded the five individuals compensatory damages totaling $5,273,492.50 for their respective injuries, plus prejudgment interest dating back to July, 1965, of $8,964,973.25. All damages, except for $48,492.50 to one plaintiff for property damage claims, were awarded for personal injuries. The district court also awarded $7,500,000 in punitive damages to the class as a whole.
on the basis that the District Court certified the case as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3). Velsicol argued that individual issues, such as proximate cause and damages, predominated over common issues, so that the District court erred in its classification. The Appeals Court ruled that as long as the defendant's liability can be determined on a class-wide basis because the cause of the disaster is a single course of conduct which is identical for each of the plaintiffs. The Appeals Court reversed the District court's decision to defer its award punitive damages prior to determining compensatory damages for the entire class of 128 individuals; and remanded the recomputation of punitive damages
, hexachlorobutadiene
, hexachloroethane
, hexachloronorbornadiene, naphthalene
, tetrachloroethylene
, toluene
, hexachlorocyclopentadiene
, and benzene
, but also the known carcinogens carbon tetrachloride
and chloroform
. The drums and cartons containing these chemicals were deposited in trenches that were 15 feet (4.6 m) deep and 12 to 15 feet (4.6 m) wide and covered with approximately 3 foot (0.9144 m) of soil. Velsicol took no precautions to insure the drums from bursting and, invariably, some of the drums would leak their contents into the soil. Furthermore, the trenches were neither lined nor covered with any impermeable material to prevent the chemical waste from leaking into the soil. Velsicol eventually placed a clay cap over the landfill site in 1980 only after state authorities threatened a lawsuit over the imminent danger the landfill posed to the environment.
Environmental law
Environmental law is a complex and interlocking body of treaties, conventions, statutes, regulations, and common law that operates to regulate the interaction of humanity and the natural environment, toward the purpose of reducing the impacts of human activity...
suit filed by citizens of Hardeman County, Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee is a U.S. state located in the Southeastern United States. It has a population of 6,346,105, making it the nation's 17th-largest state by population, and covers , making it the 36th-largest by total land area...
, led by Steven Sterling, who sued Velsicol Chemical Corporation
Velsicol Chemical Corporation
Genovique Specialties Corporation was a Rosemont, Illinois based chemical company founded in 1931 that specializes in plasticizers....
for contaminating their water supply through improper disposal of toxic chemicals.
Background
In August 1964, Velsicol Chemical Corporation acquired 242 acre (0.97934012 km²) of rural land in Hardeman County, Tennessee. Velsicol used the site as a landfill for by-products from the production of chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides at its Memphis, Tennessee, chemical manufacturing facility. Before Velsicol purchased the landfill site and commenced depositing any chemicals into the ground, it neither conducted hydrogeological studies to assess the soil composition underneath the site, the water flow direction, and the location of the local water aquifer, nor drilled a monitoring well to detect and record any ongoing contamination. From October, 1964, to June, 1973, the defendant deposited a total of 300,000 55-gallon steel drums containing ultrahazardous liquid chemical waste and hundreds of fiber board cartons containing ultrahazardous dry chemical waste in the landfill.Shortly after Velsicol began its disposal operations at the landfill site, local residents and county, state, and federal authorities became concerned about the environmental impact of their activities. As a result of this concern, the United States Geological Survey (USGS), in 1967, prepared the first of several reports on the potential contamination effects of the chemicals deposited into the landfill up to that time. The 1967 report indicated that chlorinated hydrocarbons had migrated down into the subsoil and had contaminated portions of the surface and subsurface environment adjacent to the disposal site. While the chemicals had not reached the local water aquifer, the USGS concluded that both the local and contiguous ground water were in danger of contamination.
State authorities increasingly became concerned about Velsicol's disposal of ultrahazardous chemicals at the site. In 1972, the state filed an administrative action to close the landfill because the chlorinated hydrocarbons buried at the site allegedly were contaminating irreparably the subsurface waters. The state ordered Velsicol to cease disposal of all toxic chemicals by August 21, 1972, and all other chemicals by June 1, 1973.
U.S. District Court case
In 1978, forty-two plaintiffs sued Velsicol in the Circuit Court of Hardeman County, Tennessee, for damages and an injunction. The complaint sought $1.5 billion in compensatory damages and $1 billion in punitive damages. Velsicol had the cased moved to the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, seeking a diversity of citizens based on the amount of damages being sought. All but fifteen of the original forty-two plaintiffs then settled their claims. Plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended complaint for damages and an injunction and added forty-seven new plaintiffs to the original lawsuit.The complaint sought relief for involuntary exposure to certain chemical substances known to cause cancer, affect the central nervous system and permanently damage other organs of the human body, and for loss of value to their real property in the region affected by the chemicals.
The district court found Velsicol liable to the plaintiffs on legal theories of strict liability
Strict liability
In law, strict liability is a standard for liability which may exist in either a criminal or civil context. A rule specifying strict liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and loss caused by his or her acts and omissions regardless of culpability...
, common law negligence
Negligence
Negligence is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm.According to Jay M...
, trespass
Trespass
Trespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels and trespass to land.Trespass to the person, historically involved six separate trespasses: threats, assault, battery, wounding, mayhem, and maiming...
, and nuisance
Nuisance
Nuisance is a common law tort. It means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir J. F...
. The court concluded that the defendant's hazardous chemicals, which escaped from its landfill and contaminated plaintiffs' well water, were the proximate cause of the representative plaintiffs' injuries. The district court awarded the five individuals compensatory damages totaling $5,273,492.50 for their respective injuries, plus prejudgment interest dating back to July, 1965, of $8,964,973.25. All damages, except for $48,492.50 to one plaintiff for property damage claims, were awarded for personal injuries. The district court also awarded $7,500,000 in punitive damages to the class as a whole.
Appeal
Velsicol appealed the decision to the 6th Circuit Court of AppealsUnited States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* Eastern District of Kentucky* Western District of Kentucky...
on the basis that the District Court certified the case as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3). Velsicol argued that individual issues, such as proximate cause and damages, predominated over common issues, so that the District court erred in its classification. The Appeals Court ruled that as long as the defendant's liability can be determined on a class-wide basis because the cause of the disaster is a single course of conduct which is identical for each of the plaintiffs. The Appeals Court reversed the District court's decision to defer its award punitive damages prior to determining compensatory damages for the entire class of 128 individuals; and remanded the recomputation of punitive damages
Environmental damage
It was determined that spent hydrocarbons buried at the landfill disposal site included not only chlorobenzeneChlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene is an aromatic organic compound with the chemical formula C6H5Cl. This colorless, flammable liquid is a common solvent and a widely used intermediate in the manufacture of other chemicals.-Uses:...
, hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorobutadiene, Cl2C=CC=CCl2, is a colorless liquid at room temperature that has an odor similar to that of turpentine. It is a chlorinated aliphatic diene with niche applications but is most commonly used as a solvent for other chlorine-containing compounds.-Synthesis:Hexachlorobutadiene, or...
, hexachloroethane
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloroethane, also known as perchloroethanes , C2Cl6, is a colorless solid at room temperature which is used by the US Military in smoke compositions, e.g...
, hexachloronorbornadiene, naphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene is an organic compound with formula . It is a white crystalline solid with a characteristic odor that is detectable at concentrations as low as 0.08 ppm by mass. As an aromatic hydrocarbon, naphthalene's structure consists of a fused pair of benzene rings...
, tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene, also known under its systematic name tetrachloroethene and many other names, is a chlorocarbon with the formula Cl2C=CCl2. It is a colourless liquid widely used for dry cleaning of fabrics, hence it is sometimes called "dry-cleaning fluid." It has a sweet odor detectable by...
, toluene
Toluene
Toluene, formerly known as toluol, is a clear, water-insoluble liquid with the typical smell of paint thinners. It is a mono-substituted benzene derivative, i.e., one in which a single hydrogen atom from the benzene molecule has been replaced by a univalent group, in this case CH3.It is an aromatic...
, hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene is an organochlorine compound that is a precursor to several pesticides. This colourless liquid is an inexpensive reactive diene. Many of its derivatives proved to be highly controversial, as studies showed them to be persistent organic pollutants. Collectively, the...
, and benzene
Benzene
Benzene is an organic chemical compound. It is composed of 6 carbon atoms in a ring, with 1 hydrogen atom attached to each carbon atom, with the molecular formula C6H6....
, but also the known carcinogens carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride, also known by many other names is the organic compound with the formula CCl4. It was formerly widely used in fire extinguishers, as a precursor to refrigerants, and as a cleaning agent...
and chloroform
Chloroform
Chloroform is an organic compound with formula CHCl3. It is one of the four chloromethanes. The colorless, sweet-smelling, dense liquid is a trihalomethane, and is considered somewhat hazardous...
. The drums and cartons containing these chemicals were deposited in trenches that were 15 feet (4.6 m) deep and 12 to 15 feet (4.6 m) wide and covered with approximately 3 foot (0.9144 m) of soil. Velsicol took no precautions to insure the drums from bursting and, invariably, some of the drums would leak their contents into the soil. Furthermore, the trenches were neither lined nor covered with any impermeable material to prevent the chemical waste from leaking into the soil. Velsicol eventually placed a clay cap over the landfill site in 1980 only after state authorities threatened a lawsuit over the imminent danger the landfill posed to the environment.