## Facts

- George Tankersley owned a 160-acre farm in Christian County, Illinois, and leased the surface for farming to John Norville.
- The coal estate beneath the farm had been severed from the surface estate and owned by coal companies; mining was conducted using room-and-pillar methods.
- Peabody Coal Co. acquired the mineral estate after a predecessor coal company had mined part of the coal; the predecessor later dissolved.
- The surface allegedly subsided due to undermining, causing permanent damage to the land and crop losses.
- Tankersley and Norville sued Peabody seeking damages for loss of subjacent support and consequential crop damage.
- A key dispute was whether Peabody could be liable for subsidence attributed to the predecessor’s mining activities.

## Issues

1. Whether the duty to provide subjacent support is a property-based obligation that runs with the mineral estate and binds successor mineral owners.
2. Whether a successor mineral owner may be held liable for subsidence caused by a predecessor’s mining without an express assumption of liabilities or a corporate-law basis (e.g., merger).
3. Whether the evidence and jury instructions supported awards for permanent injury to land and crop losses.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s judgment that had denied successor liability absent an express assumption of liabilities or a corporate-law exception.
- The court held Peabody, as the current owner of the mineral estate, could be liable for subsidence damage even if the undermining was done by its dissolved predecessor.
- The court reinstated the circuit court judgments for Tankersley and Norville, with modifications relating to certain damage elements.

## Legal Principles

- The surface estate has a right to subjacent support as an incident of property ownership when minerals and surface are severed.
- The mineral estate is burdened by a continuing duty to maintain subjacent support; the duty is not merely contractual or personal to the original miner.
- The duty of support runs with the land as a burden on the mineral estate, binding successive owners of the mineral rights.
- Corporate successor-liability limits do not control where liability is based on a property burden attached to the mineral estate rather than vicarious responsibility for a predecessor’s tort.
- Damages may include permanent injury to real property (commonly measured by diminished value or appropriate restoration concepts) and proven, proximately caused crop losses suffered by a surface tenant.

## Conclusion

Illinois treated the obligation to provide subjacent support as a running burden on the mineral estate, making the current mineral owner responsible for subsidence damage even when the excavation that removed support was performed by a dissolved predecessor, and it reinstated the plaintiffs’ trial judgments subject to damage-related modification.


Tankersley v. Peabody Coal Co., 31 Ill. 2d 496, 202 N.E.2d 498 (Ill. 1964)