Gulf Oil Corp. v. Alexander, 6604

• Decision Date: 04 June 1956
• Docket Number: No. 6604,6604
• Citation: 291 S.W.2d 792
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals
• Parties: GULF OIL CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Bob ALEXANDER, Appellee.

Page 792

291 S.W.2d 792

GULF OIL CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Bob ALEXANDER, Appellee.

No. 6604.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Amarillo.

June 4, 1956.

Rehearing Denied June 25, 1956.

David W. Stephens, Jesse P. Luton, Jr., John E. Thomason, Fort Worth, Archie D. Gray, Pittsburgh, Pa., Kiser & Tabor, Levelland, for appellant.

Allison, Steele & Allison, Levelland, for appellee.

MARTIN, Justice.

Appellee, Bob Alexander, owns a 372 acre farm adjoining the leasehold of appellant, Gulf Oil Corporation. The fresh-water strata underlying appellee's farm and supplying his irrigation well was polluted by the seepage of salt water from a salt water disposal pit constructed and used by appellant in oil and gas operations on its leasehold adjoining appellee's farm land. Appellee sued for damages accruing to him by reason of the pollution of the fresh-water strata as used by him in irrigating his farm lands and recovered judgment in the sum of $22,320. Appellant prefected its appeal based on three points of error.

The undisputed evidence reveals that appellant's disposal of its salt water polluted appellee's supply of irrigation water. But, appellant by its three points of error asserts that it is not liable for appelee's damages by reason of the fact that there is no evidence of any negligence in its disposal of the salt water and that appellee's cause of action is barred by the two year statute of limitations, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 5526. As to the issue of negligence, appellee asserts that the evidence sustains the jury findings on such issue and, further, that its pleading and proof that appellant violated Rule 20 as promulgated by the Railroad Commission renders appellant liable for the damage accruing to appellee.

Appellant's first point of error alleging there is no evidence to sustain the jury finding that appellants were negligent in disposing of the salt water requires an examination of the record in the light of the applicable rules. The record reveals that a large quantity of salt was deposited in the disposal pit on appellant's leasehold. Appellee relies on this fact as supporting the jury finding of negligence. The evidence also reveals that the top layer of soil in the disposal pit was of a porous nature. On the issue of whether there is any evidence of negligence, the fact that a large quantity of salt was deposited in the disposal pit is not evidence of negligence in itself. The record is wholly silent as to whether this amount of salt was so excessive as compared to the amount of salt deposited in other disposal pits in the oil field as to require appellant to take additional measures to contain the same. There is also no evidence that the soil where the pit was constructed was more porous than the soil in other disposal pits in the oil field and required additional care as to construction of the pit. The undisputed evidence reveals that appellant's method of disposal of the salt water was the universal method of disposal in the oil field in that territory. In fact, like disposal pits were located on appellee's tract of land. Since the uncontroverted evidence establishes that appellant's disposal of the salt water was wholly in conformity with the conduct of such business in that oil filed there is no evidence in the case establishing negligence in its usual sense. Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Alexander, 103 Tex. 594, 132 S.W. 119.

The above ruling requires the examination of another principle of law as to liability or non-liability under the facts in the cause. Appellee pleaded and proved that Rule 20 as promulgated by the Railroad Commission of Texas makes the following requirement with reference to the disposal of salt water:

'Fresh water, whether above or below the surface shall be protected from pollution, whether in drilling, plugging or disposing of salt water already produced.'

It is apparent this rule specifically prohibits the pollution of fresh water by the disposal of salt water without any reference to negligence. Since appellant admits, as established by the undisputed record, that it polluted appellee's fresh water strata with salt water, appellant is liable for such pollution by reason of its violation of Rule 20 above st forth. This principle is recognized in Peterson v. Grayce Oil Company, Tex.Civ.App., 37 S.W.2d 367 (Syl. 3) in the following...