## Facts

- Since about 1911, W. R. Hampton owned two tracts of land on opposite sides of the Roanoke River near Plymouth, North Carolina, known as the Kitty Hawk and Slade Fisheries.
- Hampton alleged that he and his predecessors placed and maintained fixed, costly fishing equipment used to catch fish during seasonal runs.
- Hampton alleged that migratory fish traveled annually from the ocean up the Roanoke River to freshwater spawning grounds and that the fish would pass Hampton’s fisheries during that migration.
- North Carolina Pulp Co. owned property on the Roanoke River downstream from Hampton’s fisheries, along the route the migrating fish would pass before reaching Hampton’s fishing grounds.
- Hampton alleged the company operated a sulfate pulp mill and discharged large volumes of poisonous and deleterious waste into the river.
- Hampton claimed the discharge injured and destroyed fish and interrupted or diverted the upstream migration, reducing the number of fish reaching his equipment and harming his fishery business.
- Hampton sued for $30,000 in damages for the alleged wrongful diversion and destruction of fish.
- North Carolina Pulp Co. moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim; the court addressed only the sufficiency of the pleadings and accepted the allegations as true for purposes of the motion.

## Issues

1. Whether a complaint by an upstream fishery operator alleging that a downstream riparian mill polluted the river and diverted or destroyed migratory fish states a private claim for damages sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.
2. Whether the alleged injury to Hampton’s fisheries and business constitutes a special, private damage that may be actionable even though the pollution affects public waters and wildlife resources.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to dismiss.
- The court held that Hampton’s allegations of industrial discharges that allegedly diverted and destroyed fish and damaged his established fisheries were sufficient, at the pleading stage, to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

## Legal Principles

- On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint and assumes the pleaded facts are true.
- Pollution of public waters may constitute a public wrong, but a private plaintiff may sue when the plaintiff alleges special damage different in kind from that suffered by the public at large.
- A long-established fishery business and the investment in fixed fishing gear may support a claim of particularized harm when alleged pollution directly interferes with the fishery’s operation and yields.
- At the pleading stage, allegations that industrial waste proximately injured, killed, or diverted fish in a way that damaged a specific fishery may be enough to proceed to proof, even if the fish are not privately owned before capture.

## Conclusion

The district court refused to dismiss Hampton’s suit because, taking the complaint’s allegations as true, Hampton pleaded a legally sufficient claim that North Carolina Pulp Co.’s toxic discharges into the Roanoke River diverted and destroyed migratory fish and caused specific damage to Hampton’s established fisheries and business, which could support a private damages action beyond a purely public injury.


Hampton v. North Carolina Pulp Co., 49 F. Supp. 625 (1943)