Smith v. ConocoPhillips Pipe Line Co., No. 14-2191 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePhillips owns an underground petroleum pipeline, built in 1930. A 1963 report stated that 100 barrels of leaded gasoline had leaked beneath West Alton, Missouri, and not been recovered. The leak was repaired. In 2002 a West Alton resident noticed a petroleum odor in his home. He contacted Phillips, which investigated. West Alton has no municipal water. Testing on the owner’s well disclosed benzene, a gasoline additive and carcinogen, at three times allowable limits. Phillips purchased the property, and two nearby homes and, with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), established a remediation plan. In 2006 Phillips demolished the homes, removed 4000 cubic yards of soil, and set up wells to monitor for chemicals of concern (COCs). Phillips volunteered to provide precautionary bottled water to 50 residents near the site. Sampling of other wells had not shown COCs above allowable limits. MDNR requested that Phillips test the wells of each family receiving bottled water before ending its water supply program. Phillips chose instead to continue distributing bottled water. Most of the recipients are within 0.25 miles of the contamination site. In 2011 nearby landowners sued, alleging nuisance, on the theory that possible pockets of contamination still exist. The Eighth Circuit reversed class certification, noting the absence of evidence showing class members were commonly affected by contamination,
Court Description: Murphy, Author, with Shepherd, Circuit Judge, and Harpool, District Judge] Civil case - Nuisance. In class action alleging defendant had created a nuisance by contaminating drinking well water within a 1.1 mile radius of its contaminated site, the district court erred in certifying the class of homeowner plaintiffs; in light of contemporary consensus by persuasive authority on the meaning of common law nuisance in the context of environmental contamination, the court concludes that the putative class fear of contamination spreading from the pipeline leak site to harm their property is not a sufficient injury to support a claim for common law nuisance in the absence of proof. [ September 14, 2015
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.