{ Banner Image }





NJ Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of 州’s 侵入 Claim in NRD Lawsuit

2020年4月7日,新泽西州高级下期双色球预测上诉庭在 新泽西州环境保护署 v. 赫斯,A-2893-18T2(N.J. Super。App。Div。Div。7,2020),这是新泽西州(“State”)正在寻求弥补自然资源损失(“NRDs”)。今年早些时候,我们标记了上诉下期双色球预测’s opinion as one to watch in 2020, particularly with respect to how the Appellate Court would rule on the 州’对不拥有的土地提出侵害主张的能力—这个问题使姐妹审判下期双色球预测分裂。 看到  新泽西州环境保护局诉Deull Fuel,编号ATL-L-1839-18(N.J. Super。Ct。Law Div .. 2019年8月8日)(否决动议,以驳回普通法擅自侵入的主张,因为公共信托原则取代了侵入的排他性要素); 新泽西州环境保护署 v. 赫斯, MID-L4579-18 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. Dec. 21, 2018) (granting motion to dismiss common law trespass claim because 州 lacked exclusive possession over the land).  The Appellate Court’s unreported opinion provides clarity that despite the 州’在公共信托理论的授权下,如果没有排他性占有,它就不能提出侵害主张。

赫斯公司(“Hess”)在雷丁港经营一家精炼厂,随后将该物业出售给了Buckeye Partners L.P.(“Buckeye”) in 2013. The facility was and continues to be used to store and process crude oil and other refined petroleum products. The 州 initiated a lawsuit against 赫斯 and 七叶树 in 八月 2018, one of the first lawsuits brought by the 州 in over ten years to seek recovery of 无损检测. In the 州’s complaint it alleged discharges of hazardous substances from the refineries during 赫斯’财产所有权。此外,该州声称有害物质影响了地下水,地表水,沉积物,湿地和生物区系。纽约州根据《新泽西州泄漏赔偿与控制法》(“Spill Act”)和《水污染控制法》(“WPCA”),以及针对公害,侵入和严格责任的普通法。

In 十月 2018, 赫斯 moved to dismiss the 州’s trespass claim and public nuisance claim to the extent that it sought relief beyond abatement. The following month 七叶树 joined 赫斯’的动议,并提出动议以驳回国家’s trespass, public nuisance, and strict liability claims. The trial court heard oral arguments on 十二月 21, 2018, and that same day the court granted 赫斯 and 七叶树’的动议,对国家有偏见而被驳回’s trespass and common law strict liability claims as to both 赫斯 and 七叶树, and limited the remedy for the 州’的公共骚扰要求禁制令。国家寻求初审下期双色球预测的中间上诉’s decision.

2020年4月7日,上诉下期双色球预测将其意见和决定推翻了初审下期双色球预测’解雇国家’s claim for strict liability against 赫斯, affirming the dismissal of the 州’侵犯版权,并将其还还给初审下期双色球预测’s order could be clarified to state that dismissal of the 州’公共骚扰索赔中的金钱救济索赔不包括减排成本。 新泽西州环境保护署 v. 赫斯,A-2893-18T2(N.J. Super。App。Div.Dap.7.2020)。

首先,下期双色球预测驳回了初审下期双色球预测’解雇国家’的严格责任索赔,以审判下期双色球预测为前提’确定原油和精炼石油产品的储存和加工不是异常危险的活动,即使是危险的活动,国家’的严格责任索赔包含在《溢漏法》中。上诉下期双色球预测驳回了初审下期双色球预测’关于严格责任索赔的裁决,裁定除了提供普通法规定的补救措施外,还提供《溢油法》补救措施。下期双色球预测随后着手解决申诉是否充分基于Hess和Buckeye保持异常危险状况而提出严格赔偿责任的诉讼因由。上诉下期双色球预测不同意审判下期双色球预测,认为赫斯’s “石油的储存和加工。 。 。是一种异常危险的情况,可能对此施加严格责任。” ID。 at 11. With respect to 七叶树, however, the Appellate Court agreed with the trial court that the complaint failed to set forth sufficient facts to support a claim for strict liability. Applying the test in 新泽西州环境保护署 v。Ventron Corp.,《美国判例汇编》第94卷第473、488页(1983),下期双色球预测裁定:“[t]he extent of the operations, its proximity to sensitive waterways and environmental areas, and the danger of the pollutants allegedly used in 赫斯’尽管无意中执行了一些操作,” satisfied the 文创 test and, therefore, constituted an abnormally dangerous activity for purposes of maintaining a claim of common law strict liability against 赫斯. 赫斯, A-2893-18T2, at 14. The court, however, found that the 州’s complaint does not contain any allegations as to any activities conducted by 七叶树 or anyone else during its ownership that has to do with any alleged discharge or contamination. Accordingly, the court held that the common law strict liability claim against 七叶树 was properly dismissed.

接下来,上诉下期双色球预测在初审下期双色球预测讲话’解雇国家’基于国家对标的财产缺乏独占权而提出的越权要求。下期双色球预测驳回了国家’的论点是,根据公共信托理论,它拥有水资源的所有权。上诉下期双色球预测解释说,根据新泽西州法律,“[a]侵入要求入侵必须在原告专有的土地上进行。” ID。 在16(引用 文创 , 94 N.J. at 488-89). The court went on to clarify that land held in the public trust by the 州 on behalf of the people of that 州 cannot be in the 州’专有财产“as the interest created by the doctrine is intended to ensure that others have use of the same land. It does not grant to the 州 the exclusive possession of property.” ID。 at 17. Thus, the Court held that the trial court correctly dismissed the 州’s trespass claim.

Lastly, the court addressed the dismissal of the 州’s public nuisance claim to the extent the 州 seeks damages in the form of monetary relief other than abatement. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the public nuisance claim, but restored the 州’s ability to otherwise seek monetary relief associated with judgments ordering abatement of a public nuisance, if the 州 succeeds on its claim.