## Facts

- Landowners in Louisiana marshland granted a 1956 written servitude to Southern Natural Gas Company (SNG) to construct a pipeline canal across their property.
- The servitude divided the route into two segments: a northern strip (Strip II) and a southern strip (Strip I).
- The agreement required SNG to backfill the canal in the northern strip, but expressly allowed the canal in the southern strip to remain open and prohibited backfilling there.
- SNG built the canal in 1956 and left the southern strip open as the agreement specified.
- In 1978, the landowners complained that erosion had widened the canal beyond the right-of-way and that the open southern segment allowed tidal flow causing saltwater intrusion and marsh loss; they demanded SNG dam or plug the canal, and SNG refused.
- In 1986, the landowners sued for damages for canal widening/erosion and broader marsh loss, asserting negligence, strict liability, and breach of the servitude.
- The district court held the contract claim prescribed, found SNG negligent for failing to dam or plug the canal, and awarded damages (including for marsh loss and stabilization costs).

## Issues

1. Whether SNG owed a legal duty under Louisiana law to dam or plug the canal in the southern strip despite a servitude agreement that allowed the canal to remain open and prohibited backfilling.
2. Whether general Louisiana Civil Code principles governing servitudes and obligations could impose duties inconsistent with the express servitude terms.
3. Whether internal company communications could establish a duty to dam contrary to the written servitude.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed and rendered judgment for SNG.
- The court held the servitude agreement absolved SNG of any obligation to dam the southern strip canal and therefore SNG owed no duty to the landowners to dam or plug it.
- Because duty is required for negligence under Louisiana’s duty–risk analysis, the negligence judgment and damages award could not stand.
- The court treated internal SNG correspondence as consistent with SNG’s negotiated avoidance of a dam obligation and not as a source of an independent duty.
- The plaintiffs’ cross-appeal on strict liability was not reached after the court determined there was no duty to dam.

## Legal Principles

- A conventional servitude’s extent and mode of use are primarily governed by the parties’ written agreement.
- Louisiana Civil Code provisions on servitudes generally do not override an express allocation of rights and obligations in a servitude agreement absent a public-policy constraint.
- Negligence liability requires a legal duty; where an agreement negates the asserted obligation, a court cannot impose a negligence duty that contradicts the bargained-for servitude terms.
- Internal corporate documents do not create legal duties that conflict with unambiguous contractual language.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that the servitude’s express terms controlled the pipeline operator’s obligations: because the agreement allowed the canal in the southern strip to remain open and prohibited backfilling, SNG had no duty to dam or plug the canal and could not be held liable in negligence for damages allegedly caused by leaving it open.


Ryan v. Southern Nat. Gas Co., 879 F.2d 162 (5th Cir. 1989)