Cramer v. Arkansas Oklahoma Gas Corp.

• Decision Date: 28 March 1994
• Docket Number: No. 93-1049,93-1049
• Citation: 316 Ark. 465,872 S.W.2d 390
• Parties: , 130 Oil & Gas Rep. 28 Charles H. CRAMER and Leslie L. Cramer, Appellants, v. ARKANSAS OKLAHOMA GAS CORPORATION, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 390

872 S.W.2d 390

316 Ark. 465, 130 Oil & Gas Rep. 28

Charles H. CRAMER and Leslie L. Cramer, Appellants, v. ARKANSAS OKLAHOMA GAS CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 93-1049.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

March 28, 1994.

James A. Arnold, Fort Smith, for appellants.

Michael C. Carter, Fort Smith, for appellee.

NEWBERN, Justice.

The issue in this appeal is whether a complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. Ark.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The complaint alleged that Arkansas Oklahoma Gas Corporation (AOG) negligently caused injury to trees in the process of constructing a gas pipeline on property it had taken through eminent domain proceedings for the purpose of constructing a pipeline. We hold the complaint was properly dismissed because a landowner who receives compensation for his property, as if taken in fee, is not entitled to further damages for injury to the property when the injury is due to negligent installation of equipment by the party who condemned it.

AOG, the appellee, attempted to negotiate an agreement with Charles H. Cramer and Leslie Cramer, the appellants, for an easement for a gas pipeline across the Cramers' land. The Cramers expressed concern that the line would harm a group of red oak trees growing within the area of the proposed easement. AOG attempted to address the Cramers' concerns by proposing an easement wider than the standard 20 feet so as to disturb the trees as little as possible while laying pipe.

The Cramers ultimately refused to grant the easement, and AOG exercised its power of eminent domain to condemn a 40-foot wide easement across the property as well as an adjacent 20-foot wide construction easement. The damages assessed in favor of the Cramers included recovery for the value of the 40-foot wide strip where the easement was to be placed, and which included the oak trees, and the rental value of the additional 20-foot wide construction easement.

The Cramers asserted their damages claim for injury to the trees by way of a counter-claim in the condemnation proceeding. The counter-claim was dismissed without prejudice by a consent order in which it was stated that the Cramers could file a subsequent negligence action. A summary judgment was entered in favor of AOG's condemnation of the land and damages were awarded to the Cramers.

The Cramers then filed their negligence action. AOG moved to dismiss on the ground of res judicata. The action was dismissed, however, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The order of dismissal stated, in part:

That no separate cause of action for negligence in the construction of the pipeline across the Plaintiffs' property contained within the right-of-way easement condemned by the Defendant exists, as the Defendant, in paying fair market value for the taking, has paid for all damages which may result to the property contained within the easement as a result of the construction of its pipeline.

The complaint contended that AOG had, by agreeing to try to protect the trees, assumed a duty which it had then breached by its negligence. The Trial Court was correct in holding the complaint insufficient to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. AOG owed no such duty in view of...