ILNews

Justices: summary judgment inappropriate on some claims in contaminated waste suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has affirmed in part and reversed in part the grant of summary judgment to various defendants involved in a landowner’s lawsuit seeking damages after a steel fabrication company deposited solid waste onto his property.

In Hugh David Reed v. Edward Reid; Reid Machinery, Inc.; North Vernon Drop Forge, Inc.; Jennings Manufacturing Co., Inc.; Reid Metals, Inc.; Glen White; Douglas Dibble; et al., 40S01-1107-PL-436, Hugh David Reed sought clean fill for his property on which he operates an auction barn and leases a portion to a nursing facility. In 2004, Reed made arrangements to have North Vernon Drop Forge deliver fill to his parking lot. While it was being dumped, Reed saw unexpected materials in the fill and suspended the dumping of Forge fill on his land.

After this incident, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management cited Forge for violations of environmental laws at its site. A test showed contamination on Reed’s property. IDEM later sent a notice of violation letter to Reed for violations of environmental laws stemming from the Forge fill. Reed hired a company to remove the contaminated soil and then filed a 14-count complaint against Forge, its employees Roger Crane, Douglas Dibble and Gen White, Forge owner Edward Reid, along with three other companies Reid owns.

The defendants and Reed moved for summary judgment on his complaints, including environmental legal action, illegal dumping, and trespass. The trial court denied Reed’s motions and granted the defendants’ motions as to all claims, leaving for trial only Reed’s negligence claims and the claims of potential liability against Reid individually and Reid Machinery.

In the 35-page decision authored by Justice Robert Rucker, among other things, the justices affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Reed on his environmental legal action claim and reversed the grant of summary judgment for the defendants on the same claim. They also reversed summary judgment for the defendants on Reed’s claim for illegal dumping. The Rule 56 materials presented to the trial court demonstrated at the very least a dispute question of material fact on whether Reed consented to the dumping of solid waste on his property, Rucker wrote.

They found questions for the jury to decide regarding the nuisance count, so they reversed summary judgment for the defendants as well as on the trespass claims.

The high court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants on Reed’s unjust enrichment claim, as well as ruled it is up to a fact-finder to determine whether the separate corporate identities of Reid’s companies may be disregarded so that liability may be imposed on Reid personally, Jennings Manufacturing, and/or Reid Machinery.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT