## Facts

- Landowners and livestock operators sued oil companies for damage allegedly caused when salt water and other oil-field refuse escaped from defendants’ artificial earthen ponds.
- The overflow crossed plaintiffs’ grasslands, injured turf and vegetation, and moved through Garrison Draw into Centralia Draw, where it polluted natural water holes used to water plaintiffs’ livestock.
- Plaintiffs claimed permanent land damage and harm to cattle and sheep from contaminated water and poisoned vegetation.
- A jury found that defendants permitted salt water to overflow onto plaintiffs’ land but found no negligence in the ponds’ construction, dam/levee size or strength, maintenance, or other alleged respects.
- The trial court rendered judgment for defendants; the court of civil appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether an oil operator may be held liable, without negligence, for property damage caused by the escape of salt water from artificial ponds used in lawful oil operations.
2. Whether doctrines governing pollution of streams or watercourses applied so as to permit recovery without proof of negligence on these facts.

## Decision

- The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the judgments for defendants.
- Texas law did not impose strict or absolute liability for damage caused by the escape of substances lawfully impounded on land in ordinary use.
- The court declined to apply the English strict-liability rule associated with *Rylands v. Fletcher* to oil-field salt-water ponds in Texas.
- Because the jury found no negligence, the finding that salt water overflowed did not support liability.
- Stream- or public-water pollution rules were not applied because plaintiffs did not establish facts triggering those doctrines.

## Legal Principles

- In Texas, absent statute or a special rule applicable to public waters, recovery for damage caused by escaped impounded substances generally requires proof of negligence.
- The mere escape of salt water from a lawfully constructed and maintained impoundment does not create liability without fault.
- Activities such as storing and impounding water (and related substances) may be treated as ordinary uses of land in Texas conditions; that classification weighs against strict liability.
- When a jury resolves negligence against the plaintiff, an appellate court will not impose liability on a no-fault theory that Texas law does not recognize in the circumstances.

## Conclusion

The court held that landowners could not recover for damage from escaped salt water from oil-field ponds without proving negligent construction, maintenance, or operation, and it rejected strict liability for such impoundments under Texas law.


Turner v. Big Lake Oil Co., 96 S.W.2d 221 (Tex. 1936)