Mangini v. Aerojet-General Corp.
Citation | 230 Cal.App.3d 1125,281 Cal.Rptr. 827 |
Decision Date | 30 May 1991 |
Docket Number | AEROJET-GENERAL,No. C004771,C004771 |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Parties | , 21 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,429 Catherine Holthouse MANGINI, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.CORPORATION, et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, Christopher Berka, Edward L. Strohbehn, Jr., and Jennifer S. Rosenberg, San Jose, for plaintiffs and appellants.
Lasky, Haas, Cohler & Munter, Moses Lasky, and Janet Morgan, San Francisco, for defendants and respondents.
In this case, we consider a variety of issues arising out of claims by owners of real property against parties who leased the property from prior owners and who allegedly contaminated the property with hazardous waste during the leasehold. 1
Plaintiffs Catherine Holthouse Mangini and Mark Vernon Holthouse, owners of 2,400 acres of land in Sacramento County, filed suit against Aerojet-General Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary Cordova Chemical Company (hereafter collectively defendant), lessees of the property before plaintiffs acquired it, for allegedly contaminating the property with hazardous waste. Defendant's demurrer to the multi-count complaint was sustained without leave to amend. Because we conclude some of plaintiffs' counts should survive demurrer, we shall reverse the judgment of dismissal.
(Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318, 216 Cal.Rptr. 718, 703 P.2d 58.)
The complaint, filed January 14, 1998, alleges the following material facts:
Defendant leased the property in question from its former owners, the Cavitts, from 1960 to 1970. Plaintiffs acquired the property pursuant to an exchange of other real property from the executor and administrator of the Cavitts' estate, codefendant James H. Cavitt, in 1975. 2
Defendant's lease (attached to the complaint as an exhibit) provided, "The term of this lease is for a period of ten (10) years, commencing [in 1960] and ending [in 1970]...." The lease also stated, among other things, "Upon termination of this lease, Lessee shall surrender the premises in as good state and condition as when received by Lessee, reasonable use and wear thereof consistent with the business engaged in by Lessee ... excepted." 3 Despite this provision, defendant failed to remove millions of pounds of waste rocket fuel materials and other hazardous substances which it burned, buried, or otherwise disposed of on the property during the term of its lease, creating hazardous conditions which remain on the property.
Plaintiffs have been compelled by the Sacramento County Air Pollution Control District to undertake testing of the property and may be required under state and federal law to abate the hazardous conditions created by defendant.
Plaintiffs did not learn of the hazardous conditions until "recently."
Based on these alleged facts plaintiffs pled nine "causes of action" against defendant:
Creation of a public nuisance (first count);
Creation of a private nuisance (second count);
Negligence (third count);
Negligence per se, based on the contention that defendant's activities violated Health and Safety Code section 25601 ( ), Water Code sections 13304, 13264, and 13265 ( ), and Order No. 62-21 of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (requiring defendant to dispose of all waste discharges originating on its leased properties so as to avoid creating harmful concentrations of waste in usable groundwaters) (fourth count);
Trespass, based on the allegation that defendant wrongfully deposited harmful waste on the property and failed to remove the waste after plaintiffs acquired the property (fifth count);
Strict liability for ultrahazardous activities (sixth count);
Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 ( )(ninth count);
Equitable indemnity for testing and clean-up costs incurred by plaintiffs at the direction of governmental entities (tenth count); and
Declaratory relief with respect to the parties' obligations for testing and clean-up costs (eleventh count).
Defendant demurred to all the "causes of action" on the grounds they failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and were barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend on those grounds. This appeal followed.
Defendant contends the complaint fails to state a cause of action for nuisance.
Defendant argues: (Original emphasis.)
In support of this argument, defendant cites general treatises. Thus, for example, Prosser and Keeton remark as follows: (Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts (5th ed. 1984) p. 622.)
Similarly, Wood on Nuisances (3d ed. 1893) states, (P. 33) 4
Defendant also relies upon Philadelphia Elec. Co. v. Hercules, Inc. (3d Cir.1985) 762 F.2d 303, cert. den. 474 U.S. 980, 106 S.Ct. 384, 88 L.Ed.2d 337, where the federal court applied Pennsylvania law to conclude that a successor owner of property could not sue a prior owner for nuisance because, inter alia, the historical role of private nuisance law was limited to a resolution of conflicts between neighboring contemporaneous land uses. 5 (Pp. 313-314.)
We cannot accept defendant's argument because, as we shall explain, the authorities on which it is premised do not correctly reflect California law. In particular, defendant fails to recognize that California nuisance law is a creature of statute. The California nuisance statutes have been construed, according to their broad terms, to allow an owner of property to sue for damages caused by a nuisance created on the owner's property. Under California law, it is not necessary that a nuisance have its origin in neighboring property.
The following provisions of the Civil Code are pertinent here (all further statutory references are to the Civil Code unless noted otherwise):
Section 3479: "Anything which is injurious to health, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway, is a nuisance."
Section 3480: "A public nuisance is one which affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal."
Section 3481: "Every nuisance not included in the definition of the last section is private."
Section 3493: "A private person may maintain an action for a public nuisance, if it is specially injurious to himself, but not otherwise."
Code of Civil Procedure section 731 (hereafter ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United Nat'l Maint., Inc. v. San Diego Convention Ctr. Corp.
...Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate, Easements § 15.2 (3d ed. 2000). 26. Restatement (First) Property § 516; see Mangini v. Aerojet-General Corp., 230 Cal. App.3d 1125, 1141 (1991) ("A conditional or restricted consent to enter land creates a privilege to do so only in so far as the condition ......
-
California Toxic Substances v. Payless Cleaners
...in its creation are responsible for the ensuing damages.'" Id. at 38, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 865 (quoting Mangini v. Aerojet-General Corp. 230 Cal.App.3d 1125, 1137, 281 Cal.Rptr. 827 (1991)). Nuisance liability also extends to defendants who create "a system that causes hazardous wastes to be disp......
-
Rincon Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation Cal. v. Flynt
...the right common to the general public that is the subject of the interference. (See, e.g., Mangini v. Aerojet-General Corp. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1125, 1137–1138, 281 Cal.Rptr. 827 [special injury where pollution required building owner to undertake testing for hazardous conditions]; Wade ......
-
In re Weiand Auto. Indus.
..., 311 F.3d 1139, 1152-53 (9th Cir. 2002).113 D.I. 110, Exh. 12 at 11.114 D.I. 110, Exh. 3J at 29.115 Mangini v. Aerojet-Gen. Corp. , 230 Cal. App. 3d 1125, 1143, 281 Cal. Rptr. 827 (1991).116 D.I. 91 at 27.117 D.I. 91 at 27.118 D.I. 109 at 8.119 D.I. 109 at 26.120 D.I. 109 at 27.121 D.I. 10......
-
Real property torts
...on the owner’s property alleged special injuries sufficient to allow a public nuisance suit. Mangini v. Aerojet-General Corp., 230 Cal. App. 3d 1125, 1137-38, 281 Cal. Rptr. 827, 834-35 (1991). The noise, annoyance, and inconvenience created by aircraft flying over property located near an ......
-
CHAPTER 9 ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES IN MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS OF NATURAL RESOURCE COMPANIES
...Inc., 762 F.2d 303, 313-15 (3d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 980 (1985). But see, e.g., Mangini v. Aerojet-General Corp., 230 Cal.App.3d 1125, 1134-37 (3d D. 1991), review denied, 1991 Cal. LEXIS 4099 (Aug. 29, 1991). [51] Whether the trespass or nuisance is "continuing" depends on whe......
-
CHAPTER 8 INNOVATIVE TRENDS IN ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION: National and International Perspectives
...nuisance; and by the judgment the nuisance may be enjoined or abated, as well as damages recovered. Mangini v. Aerojet General Corp., 230 Cal. App. 3d 1125, 281 Cal. Rptr. 827 (1991). [2] A prime example lies in the Clean Water Act which preempted all prior federal common law which had form......