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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT