## Facts

- Cities Service Company operated a Florida phosphate mine that stored phosphate “slimes” (watery industrial waste) in large settling-pond impoundments.
- On December 3, 1971, a dam on one settling pond failed.
- Approximately one billion gallons of phosphate slimes escaped into Whidden Creek and then into the Peace River.
- The release killed large numbers of fish and polluted public waters and related natural resources.
- The State of Florida sued seeking injunctive relief and damages, pleading strict liability, negligence, and nuisance theories.
- The trial court entered partial summary judgment for the State establishing liability on a strict-liability theory; Cities Service took an interlocutory appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether Florida law recognizes a Rylands v. Fletcher–type strict-liability doctrine for hazardous, non-natural uses of land when a dangerous substance escapes.
2. Whether impounding enormous quantities of phosphate slimes in a reservoir-like settling pond constitutes a non-natural (extraordinary) use triggering strict liability upon escape.
3. Whether partial summary judgment establishing strict-liability liability was proper where the dam break and escape were not genuinely disputed.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the interlocutory order granting partial summary judgment on strict liability.
- Florida law permits strict liability for damage caused by the escape of dangerous substances collected on land as part of a non-natural, hazardous use.
- Impounding massive quantities of phosphate slimes in a man-made reservoir was a non-natural use of land as a matter of law, and the escape triggered strict liability.
- The ruling established liability on the strict-liability theory while leaving damages and remaining matters for later proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A party that collects or stores on its land a substance likely to cause harm if it escapes may be held strictly liable for the natural consequences of an escape when the storage constitutes a non-natural or extraordinary use of land.
- “Non-natural” use may be found where the activity involves large-scale industrial impoundment of hazardous waste posing an exceptional risk of widespread harm.
- Strict liability in this setting does not depend on proof of negligence and may operate alongside negligence and nuisance causes of action.
- Partial summary judgment may establish strict-liability liability where the material facts concerning escape from the hazardous impoundment are undisputed and the activity fits the strict-liability category as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court held that Florida recognizes strict liability for the escape of dangerous substances from non-natural, hazardous land uses and affirmed a pretrial ruling that a phosphate slime impoundment’s catastrophic failure imposed strict liability on the operator for resulting damage to public waters and wildlife.


Cities Serv. Co. v. State, 312 So. 2d 799 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)