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
- Whether Florida law recognizes a Rylands v. Fletcher–type strict-liability doctrine for hazardous, non-natural uses of land when a dangerous substance escapes.
- Whether impounding enormous quantities of phosphate slimes in a reservoir-like settling pond constitutes a non-natural (extraordinary) use triggering strict liability upon escape.
- 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.