## Facts

- Western Petroleum, Inc. bought about 40 acres in rural Utah that had been used as a gravel pit and used it solely as a disposal site for formation water generated by oil-well operations.
- Formation water contained chemical contaminants, including oil, gas, and high concentrations of salt and chemicals, rendering it unfit for culinary or agricultural use.
- Western trucked formation water to an unlined disposal pit and discharged it intending it to evaporate and percolate into the ground.
- Lloyd and Jeanne Branch owned adjacent property and relied on two domestic (culinary) wells for household water.
- Formation water percolated into the groundwater system feeding the Branches’ wells, contaminating them and interfering with residential use of the property.
- Formation water also ran off onto the Branches’ land at the surface; Western dug a pond to contain runoff, but containment was only partly effective and contamination and trespass continued.
- A jury found contamination of the two wells and awarded damages for well pollution, trespass, mental suffering/discomfort/annoyance, and punitive damages.
- The trial court entered judgment on strict liability for the well-pollution and trespass-related amounts and punitive damages, but set aside the award for mental suffering/discomfort/annoyance.

## Issues

1. Whether disposal of toxic formation water in an unlined pit, with resulting percolation and contamination of neighboring domestic wells, is an abnormally dangerous activity subject to strict liability.
2. Whether strict liability required negligence-based instructions on proximate cause and comparative negligence, and whether damages had to be reduced for pollution attributable to other parties or conditions.
3. Whether the evidence supported an award of punitive damages.
4. Whether damages for mental suffering, discomfort, and annoyance are recoverable for interference with residential property use caused by contamination and related trespass/nuisance.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court held Western’s disposal method constituted an abnormally dangerous activity and imposed strict liability for contamination of the Branches’ wells.
- The court rejected Western’s requests for negligence-based instructions and comparative-negligence allocation, treating strict liability as controlling once the activity was classified as abnormally dangerous.
- The court upheld punitive damages based on evidence Western continued disposal despite knowledge of harmful effects and complaints and undertook only limited, ineffective corrective measures.
- The court reversed the trial court’s removal of the jury’s award for mental suffering, discomfort, and annoyance and reinstated that damage award.

## Legal Principles

- A party conducting an abnormally dangerous or non-natural use of land may be strictly liable for harm proximately resulting from that activity, including groundwater contamination.
- When strict liability applies, negligence concepts such as breach and comparative fault under a comparative negligence statute do not govern liability allocation in the same manner as ordinary negligence claims.
- In property interference cases involving contamination and related trespass/nuisance conditions, damages may include compensation for personal inconvenience, discomfort, and annoyance affecting residential use and enjoyment.
- Punitive damages may be awarded where the defendant’s conduct reflects willful disregard or reckless indifference to others’ rights, including continuation of harmful conduct after notice of injury.

## Conclusion

The court treated disposal of toxic formation water into an unlined pit, leading to groundwater and surface contamination, as an abnormally dangerous activity triggering strict liability, upheld compensatory and punitive damages, and allowed recovery for mental suffering, discomfort, and annoyance caused by the interference with residential property use.


Branch v. W. Petrol., Inc., 657 P.2d 267 (Utah 1982)