## Facts

- Residential property owners in Medina Township, Ohio alleged an oil-and-gas operator drilled and hydraulically fractured two nearby wells.
- The wells were alleged to be approximately 2,502 feet from plaintiffs’ home and drinking-water well.
- Plaintiffs alleged the operation injected drilling/fracturing fluids under extreme pressure and that the fluids contained toxic and carcinogenic chemicals (including barium, manganese, and strontium).
- Plaintiffs alleged negligent planning, training, and supervision led to releases of fracturing fluids and contaminants into surrounding ground and waters, contaminating their water supply.
- Plaintiffs asserted a strict-liability claim contending the hydraulic fracturing activity was abnormally dangerous (Count Two), among other claims.
- Defendant moved to dismiss Count Two and another claim (Count Six) under Rule 12(b)(6); plaintiffs agreed to dismiss Count Six without prejudice.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint stated a plausible Ohio strict-liability claim that hydraulic fracturing, as alleged, constituted an abnormally dangerous activity, sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
2. Whether Count Six should be dismissed based on plaintiffs’ agreement to voluntary dismissal.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion as to Count Six and dismissed it.
- The court denied the motion as to Count Two, allowing the strict-liability claim to proceed.
- All other claims remained pending.

## Legal Principles

- On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and asks whether the complaint states a plausible claim for relief; legal conclusions are not assumed true.
- Ohio recognizes strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities consistent with Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 519–520.
- The § 520 “abnormally dangerous” inquiry involves multiple factors (including risk and magnitude of harm, inability to eliminate risk by reasonable care, common usage, appropriateness of location, and comparative community value).
- At the pleading stage, a plaintiff need not expressly plead each § 520 factor in a formulaic way; it is sufficient to allege facts that, if true, could support a reasonable inference that the activity may qualify as abnormally dangerous in the circumstances.

## Conclusion

The court permitted plaintiffs’ strict-liability claim based on nearby hydraulic fracturing to proceed because the alleged use of toxic chemicals, high-pressure injection, proximity to a residential water supply, and claimed contamination plausibly supported an abnormally dangerous-activity theory under Ohio law, while dismissing a separate claim that plaintiffs chose to drop.


Mangan v. Landmark 4, LLC, No. 1:12 CV 613, 2013 WL 950560 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 12, 2013)