## Facts

- From about 1917 to 1926, United States Radium Corporation (USRC) operated a radium-processing facility on an industrial site in Orange, New Jersey.
- USRC extracted radium from carnotite ore and produced luminous paint; it discarded radioactive tailings on unimproved portions of the property.
- The residual contamination included Radium-226 and radon gas, creating long-lasting and latent health and property risks.
- USRC sold the property in 1943; decades later, T & E Industries, Inc. acquired the site and operated its business there.
- In 1979, New Jersey regulators detected radiation levels on the property exceeding applicable standards, attributing the condition to historic radium processing.
- T & E vacated the premises and undertook remediation; the contamination impaired use and marketability of the property.
- T & E sued USRC’s corporate successors, asserting claims including negligence, nuisance, fraud/misrepresentation, and strict liability for abnormally dangerous activity.

## Issues

1. Whether a current property owner may recover in strict liability from a distant predecessor in title whose abnormally dangerous activity caused long-latent contamination on the property.
2. Whether caveat emptor or the purchaser’s acquisition of the property bars strict-liability recovery for latent radioactive contamination.
3. What damages may be recovered for remediation and related losses, and how to avoid duplicative measures of recovery.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a current owner may assert strict liability against a former owner whose abnormally dangerous activity caused the property contamination.
- The Court rejected the view that strict liability in this setting is limited to harms to contemporaneous neighbors, holding the duty extends to successors affected by continuing, latent conditions.
- The Court held caveat emptor does not bar strict-liability recovery for latent, extraordinary risks created by the polluter’s abnormally dangerous activity.
- Applying Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 519–520, the Court concluded that USRC’s radium processing and on-site disposal of tailings constituted an abnormally dangerous activity.
- The Court addressed damage categories and measurement principles (including remediation costs, loss of use, and diminution in value) and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its rulings.

## Legal Principles

- An actor conducting an abnormally dangerous activity is strictly liable for resulting harm, evaluated under Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 519–520 factors, including high risk, grave harm, noncommon usage, and risks not eliminable by reasonable care.
- Strict liability for abnormally dangerous activity may extend beyond the period of ownership and operation when the harmful condition is continuing and latent.
- A predecessor in title that created an abnormally dangerous condition may be strictly liable to successors in title injured by that condition.
- Caveat emptor does not shield a seller/polluter from strict liability for latent contamination that is not a normal, bargained-for incident of a property transfer.
- Recoverable damages in contamination cases may include reasonable remediation costs and related losses (such as loss of use), subject to proof and limits designed to prevent duplicative recovery (including between remediation and diminution in value).

## Conclusion

The court allocated the costs of long-latent radioactive contamination to the enterprise that created the extraordinary risk, permitting a successor owner to pursue strict liability against the predecessor polluter and limiting caveat emptor as a defense, while directing careful application of remediation and property-damage measures on remand.


T & E Indus., Inc. v. Safety Light Corp., 123 N.J. 371 (1991)