Facts
- Controlled Environment Corporation (CEC) developed the Eastman planned residential community in Grantham, New Hampshire.
- CEC and a related community association owned land containing a maintenance garage and a storage tank from which gasoline allegedly leaked into soil and groundwater.
- CEC and the association allegedly dumped oil, grease, and other development- and golf-course-related wastes at the same location, which allegedly entered groundwater.
- The alleged contaminants migrated beyond the development’s boundaries onto Judith Bagley’s nearby property, allegedly causing property damage and personal injury.
- Bagley sued CEC asserting multiple tort theories, including a strict-liability count, and sought civil liability based on alleged violations of environmental statutes, including RSA chapter 147-A (hazardous waste).
Issues
- Whether New Hampshire should recognize strict liability for hazardous-waste disposal and releases causing off-site contamination and injury.
- Whether a private plaintiff may pursue damages based on violations of RSA chapter 147-A, including failure to obtain a required permit, violation of permit terms, or violation of substantive statutory or regulatory requirements.
- Whether dismissal of other statutory-theory counts was proper where the complaint lacked specificity and where arguments were not pursued on appeal.
Decision
- Affirmed dismissal of the strict-liability count, declining to impose strict liability for the hazardous-waste disposal alleged.
- Reversed dismissal of the RSA chapter 147-A count, holding that statutory or permit-related violations under the hazardous-waste scheme may supply “legal fault” for a private damages action.
- Remanded to allow Bagley to amend her pleadings to identify the specific RSA 147-A statutory, regulatory, or permit-based violation(s) allegedly committed.
- Affirmed dismissal of other statutory counts, including the RSA 106-A count, due to insufficiently specific pleading and waiver of arguments not briefed.
Legal Principles
- On a motion to dismiss, courts accept as true the properly pleaded facts and reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.
- New Hampshire does not impose strict liability for hazardous activities merely because they can be characterized as “abnormally dangerous,” especially where negligence is practically provable and negligence doctrines can address the harm.
- A plaintiff states a tort cause of action grounded in a statute by alleging (i) a statutory violation and (ii) resulting harm of the type the statute was intended to prevent.
- For RSA chapter 147-A, actionable statutory violations may include failure to obtain a required permit, failure to comply with permit terms, or failure to meet substantive statutory or regulatory requirements.
- Violations of a permit system can constitute negligence per se (statutory fault) because bypassing or breaching the permitting process can defeat the statutory scheme’s implementation of substantive safety standards.
- A private damages action may proceed on a judge-made negligence-per-se theory even absent explicit statutory language creating a private right of action, when the plaintiff’s injury falls within the statute’s protective purpose.
- Statutory-based claims may be dismissed when the complaint does not specify the exact nature of the alleged violation, and issues not briefed on appeal are treated as waived.
Conclusion
The court refused to extend strict liability to hazardous-waste contamination claims but held that a private plaintiff may seek damages using RSA chapter 147-A violations—including permit-related violations—as the standard of care under a negligence-per-se theory, subject to pleading the specific violation and proving causation and damages.