Bayouth v. Lion Oil Co.
| Decision Date | 16 May 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. C-2290,C-2290 |
| Citation | 671 S.W.2d 867 |
| Parties | Frank E. BAYOUTH et al., Petitioners, v. LION OIL COMPANY et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Jimmy Horany, Thomas W. Schueller, Barry L. Macha, Wichita Falls, for petitioners.
Moore, Dickson, Roberts and Ratliff, R. Temple Dickson, Sweetwater, Stubbeman, McRae, Sealy, Laughlin & Browder, Rodney W. Satterwhite and Marc L. Skeen, Midland, for respondents.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment granted Lion Oil Company, Monsanto Company, Saxon Oil Company and Bill D. Saxon (Oil Companies). The underlying issue is whether alleged damages to Bayouth's and Pope's lands are permanent or temporary. The trial court granted the Oil Companies' motion for summary judgment, holding the damages alleged were permanent as a matter of law and, therefore, barred by the two year statute of limitations. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5526 (Vernon Supp.1984). The court of appeals affirmed the summary judgment. 651 S.W.2d 423. We reverse the judgments of those courts and remand the cause to the trial court.
Frank Bayouth and J.B. Pope sued the Oil Companies for permanent damages to their land caused by salt water migration from the Oil Companies' leases. In their original petition, filed on April 15, 1976, Bayouth alleged that on October 10, 1970, he first observed moisture and salt water crystals near some old seismograph holes on his land; Pope alleged that on or about October 25, 1971, he first noticed salt crystals and moisture on the surface of his land. They alleged that the salt water continued to spread causing permanent damage and contamination to their land.
The Oil Companies moved for a summary judgment alleging the two year statute of limitations had run on a cause of action for permanent damages. Bayouth and Pope filed an amended original petition alleging temporary damages. The trial court granted the summary judgment finding no genuine issue of material fact. The court of appeals held as a matter of law the damages to the land were permanent and barred by the two year statute of limitations.
The landowners attached to their response to the motion for summary judgment, affidavits of Keith Justice and Jeff Puckett. Justice, a soil scientist, in his affidavit, stated:
It is my opinion that the damaged area of both the Bayouth and Pope farms, because of the contamination from the salt water that has spread across parts of both farms is a temporary damage.
Puckett, a geologist, in his affidavit, also stated the damage was temporary. He further stated:
... it is my opinion and I know that said damage was sporadic and was intermittent and that it was not constant, but was irregular depending upon the rainfall for many years to flow, move, and force the salt water to the farms causing the damage to the lands at irregular intervals.
In reviewing a summary judgment record, we must determine whether a disputed material fact issue exists that would preclude a summary judgment. Every reasonable inference must be indulged in favor of the non-movants and any doubts resolved in their favor. Wilcox v. St. Mary's University of San Antonio, Inc., 531 S.W.2d 589 (Tex.1975).
Permanent injuries to land give rise to a cause of action for permanent damages, which are normally measured as the difference in the value of the property before and after the injury. Temporary injuries give rise to temporary damages, which are the amount of damages that accrued during the continuance of the injury covered by the period for which the action is brought. Kraft v. Langford, 565 S.W.2d 223 (Tex.1978).
An action for permanent damages to land...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moreno v. Sterling Drug, Inc.
...of other cases when the injured party did not, and could not, know of his injury at the time it occurred. See e.g., Bayouth v. Lion Oil Co., 671 S.W.2d 867 (Tex.1984); Kelley v. Rinkle, 532 S.W.2d 947 (Tex.1976); Quinn v. Press, 135 Tex. 60, 140 S.W.2d 438 (1940). In each of these cases, th......
-
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Howse
...injury must be sustained before a cause of action in tort will accrue. Atkins v. Crosland, 417 S.W.2d at 153; Bayouth v. Lion Oil Co., 671 S.W.2d 867, 868 (Tex.1984). In certain instances, when the plaintiff may not even be aware that he has suffered an injury, Texas courts apply a discover......
-
Jones v. Texaco, Inc.
...Texas courts have applied the discovery rule in actions seeking recovery for permanent damage to land. See Bayouth v. Lion Oil Co., 671 S.W.2d 867, 868 (Tex.1984); Hues v. Warren Petroleum Co., 814 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, writ denied). Such an action has been ......
-
Paxton v. City of Dall.
...v. Rodriguez, 92 S.W.3d 502, 506 (Tex.2002) ; Gonzalez v. Mission Am. Ins. Co., 795 S.W.2d 734, 736 (Tex.1990) ; Bayouth v. Lion Oil Co., 671 S.W.2d 867, 868 (Tex.1984).125 See Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(i).126 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000).127 Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(1).128......
-
Water pollution and common-law torts
...is sporadic and contingent upon some irregular force such as rain.” * * * he Texas Supreme Court explained in Bayouth v. Lion Oil Co. , 671 S.W.2d 867, 868 (Tex. 1984), the diferent characteristics of permanent and temporary injuries: Permanent injuries to land result from an activity of su......
-
SURFACE USE NEGOTIATIONS FROM THE LANDOWNER'S PERSPECTIVE
...wastes that migrated to adjacent property during heavy rains to be a compensable and temporary injury). [55] Bayouth v. Lion Oil Co., 671 S.W.2d 867, 868 (Tex. 1984). [56] Wheeler v. Enbridge Pipelines, L.P., 449 S.W.3d 474, 480-81 (Tex. 2014). [57] Burke v. Union Pacific Resources Co., 138......
-
Chapter 17-10 Commencement of Limitation Period
...365 (Tex. Civ. App.—El Paso 1939), rev'd in part Gulf Oil Corp. v. Marathon Oil Co., 152 S.W.2d 711 (1941).[51] Bayouth v. Lion Oil Co., 671 S.W.2d 867, 868 (Tex. 1984).[52] Id.[53] Willis v. Maverick, 760 S.W.2d 642, 646 (Tex. 1988).[54] Hughes v. Mahaney &Higgens, 821 S.W.2d 154, 157 (Tex......