Hero Lands Co. v. Texaco, Inc.

• Decision Date: 06 June 1974
• Docket Number: No. 5896,5896
• Citation: 296 So.2d 345
• Parties: HERO LANDS COMPANY et al. v. TEXACO, INC.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 345

296 So.2d 345

HERO LANDS COMPANY et al. v. TEXACO, INC.

No. 5896.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

June 6, 1974.

Rehearing Denied July 3, 1974.

Writ Granted Oct. 4, 1974.

Ralph L. Kaskell, Jr. and Frederick B. Alexius, of Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, New Orleans, for plaintiffs-appellants.

John V. Baus of Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, New Orleans, for defendant-appellee.

Before SAMUEL and BOUTALL, JJ., and FLEMING, J. Pro Tem.

ROBERT M. FLEMING, Judge Pro Tem.

Hero Lands Company, et al own a tract of land of approximately 55.5 acres known as the West New Orleans Subdivision, which is contiguous to a tract of land owned by the Alsue Corporation. The boundary line between the two tracts is also the boundary line between Orleans Parish and Plaquemines Parish.

Hero, in its petition and amended petition, alleged that in March, 1970, the defendant, Texaco, secured an agreement from Alsue under which they acquired a servitude thirty feet wide on their land; and that in late July, 1970, acting under this agreement, Texaco completed and put into operation a 24 inch high-pressure gas line adjacent to and within fifteen feet of the plaintiff's property, for a distance of 1,870 feet. They alleged that Texaco, by not keeping its high-pressure gas line at least 250 feet from the boundary of Hero's property, created and maintained a continuous dangerous nuisance to said property, because of the inherent hazards and dangers of such installations, now well know to the public, including those purchasing land for residential or business purposes. They allege that such hazards and dangers became public knowledge as a result of a decision in the case of Michigan-Wisconsin Pipeline Company v. Bonin, 217 So.2d 741 (La.App.3rd 1969), which indicated damage to abutting lands for a distance of 250 feet on each side of such a pipeline, resulting in loss of market value and damages to said abutting land; the various newspaper articles concerning explosions of pipelines; and the opinion of real estate appraisers who ascribe harm and damage to land abutting the pipeline servitudes. Hero alleges that these hazards were purposely created by Texaco with respect to plaintiff's land in order to save the expense to Texaco which would have been incurred if Texaco had kept said pipeline a distance of at least 250 feet from the boundary of plaintiff's land; that Texaco chose the location for its pipeline to avoid paying the landowner, subject to the servitude, the full price which Texaco would have had to pay if it had placed the pipeline at least 250 feet away from petitioner's land. They allege that the placing of this pipeline fifteen feet away from their land has caused them damage and depreciation in market value of plaintiff's land of at least $30,000, and they ask for judgment in that amount.

Texaco filed various exceptions but for the purposes of this appeal we can only consider that of no cause of action. An exception of vagueness was first considered in the trial court and its purpose was to require the plaintiff to define the issues existing in the suit and to show that the actions against the defendant were not based on negligence or fault. The petition was amended and thereafter the District Court maintained an exception of no cause of action, dismissing the plaintiff's suit.

As we understand the pleadings and the argument of counsel, Hero does not desire to allege nor does it intend to show any facts that are not Now set forth in their petitions. The issues presented for decision are clear cut.

We are called upon, basically, to determine whether the petition of the plaintiff and the amended petition of the plaintiff states a cause of action against Texaco.

From a reading of the petitions it is clear that Hero has not alleged a cause of action under Article 2315 of our Civil Code. Article 2315 states that:

'Every act whatever of man that causes damage to another obliges him by whose fault it happened to repair it; * * *'

In order for an action to lie under this Article there must be either fault or negligence on the part of the defendant. Hero did not allege in their petition that Texaco failed to properly construct their pipeline or that Texaco physically invaded Hero's property in the construction of the pipeline or facts that would show that Texaco has created a nuisance by the construction of the pipeline. They have simply alleged that Texaco has constructed this pipeline under a grant of authority from the landowner and that their property has been depreciated by virtue of the pipeline. They have not alleged a tort. Accordingly, the exception of no cause of action was properly maintained under Article 2315.

We accept as a statement of fact that the construction of a high-pressure gas transmission line fifteen feet from Hero's property has depreciated the value of their land. In expropriation suits the Court has frequently pointed out that there is a corridor of depreciation on either side of the pipeline and that when a pipeline is built through a person's land damages are assessed against the pipeline company for these depreciated amounts. See Michigan-Wisconsin Pipeline Company v. Bonin, supra.

The most serious argument that is made to require compensation in favor of Hero is that Article 667 and Article 668 of the Civil Code provides for compensation without fault.

Article 667:

'Although a proprietor may do with his estate whatever he pleases, still he cannot make any work on it, which may deprive his neighbor of the liberty of enjoying his own, or which may be the cause of any damage to him.'

Article 668:

'Although one be not at liberty to make any work by which his neighbor's buildings may be damaged, yet everyone has the liberty of doing on his own ground whatsoever he pleases, although it should occasion some inconvenience to his neighbor. Thus, he who is not subject to any servitude originating from a particular agreement in that respect, may raise his house as high as he pleases, although by such elevation he should darken the lights of his neighbor's house, because this act occasions only an inconvenience, but not a real damage.'

There are allegations that Hero's land has depreciated in value. One question that this opinion will determine is whether this is true damages or mere inconvenience.

On the question of depreciation, we conclude that the answer is found in the application of Articles 667 and 668.

In our view, the law of Louisiana is that the construction, maintenance and operation of a gas pipeline is not a nuisance per se. See Hilliard v. Shuff, 260 La. 384, 253 So.2d 127 (1971); Jeansonne v. Cox, 233 La. 251, 96 So.2d 557 (1957); Galouye v. A. P. Blossman, Inc., 32 So.2d 90 (La.App.1947).

We recognize that a gas pipeline, a fuel storage tank or any similar structure can be operated in such a manner as to constitute a nuisance but there are no allegations to this effect in the petition.

In Hilliard v. Shuff, supra, the Supreme Court made it clear that the above Code Articles controlled this type of case and that:

'The storage of basic fuels, a lawful activity, does not, without more, violate these articles. Phrased in terms of nuisance the storage of such fuel does not constitute a nuisance per se.'

The facts in the Hilliard case were quite different from those here. The defendant then constructed an underground tank for the storage of crude oil and placed signs prohibiting smoking within 50 feet. The zone of danger extended into the Hilliard's property. The facts showed that a substantial Hazard to the adjoining property existed and severe restrictions were placed on the plaintiff's use of his property. Here, there are no hazards or restrictions alleged, only depreciation.

In Galouye v. Blossman, supra, the Court of Appeal held that the business of storing, selling and handling liquified petroleum gas is not a nuisance per se, although such a business may be operated in such a way as to become a nuisance.

The Court did find that the operation of a butane storage and sale plant under the facts presented was carelessly done and awarded damages.

There are no allegations in the...