## Facts

- Dimock Township, Pennsylvania landowners and residents sued a natural gas producer for alleged personal injury and property damage tied to drilling and hydraulic fracturing operations.
- Plaintiffs alleged the operations contaminated water supplies and asserted negligence, nuisance, trespass, and strict liability based on the theory that hydraulic fracturing is an abnormally dangerous activity.
- After extensive discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment on the strict-liability claims.
- A magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment, applying the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520 factors for abnormally dangerous activities.
- The district judge conducted de novo review of the objections to the recommendation.

## Issues

1. Whether hydraulic fracturing and related drilling operations qualify as an abnormally dangerous (ultrahazardous) activity under Pennsylvania law applying Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520, permitting strict liability regardless of fault.
2. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs’ strict-liability counts premised on that characterization.

## Decision

- The court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation after de novo review of the contested portions.
- The court held hydraulic fracturing does not qualify as an abnormally dangerous activity under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520 as applied in Pennsylvania.
- The court granted summary judgment for defendants on the strict-liability claims and dismissed those counts.
- The ruling was limited to strict liability and did not dispose of other theories such as negligence, nuisance, or trespass.

## Legal Principles

- Pennsylvania determines “abnormally dangerous” activity status using Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520’s six-factor test: risk of harm, magnitude of harm, inability to eliminate risk with reasonable care, common usage, appropriateness of location, and community value versus dangerous attributes.
- Strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities is narrowly applied; the § 520 factors are evaluated in light of case law, the factual record, and the activity’s utility and regulatory context.
- Where risks can be substantially reduced through reasonable care, engineering controls, and compliance with regulation, § 520 factor three weighs against strict liability.
- Widespread use and regulation of an activity weigh against treating it as abnormally dangerous under § 520.
- In determining whether to extend strict liability, courts may consider the absence of judicial recognition of the activity as ultrahazardous and whether claims are typically addressed through negligence- and property-based torts.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that hydraulic fracturing, considered under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520 factors and Pennsylvania law, is not an abnormally dangerous activity, so strict liability was unavailable and defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the strict-liability counts while other claims remained.


Ely v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., 38 F. Supp. 3d 518 (M.D. Pa. 2014)