## Facts

- A partially excavated canal in Niagara Falls, New York was used as a chemical waste landfill.
- From about 1942 to 1953, Hooker (predecessor to Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC)) disposed of more than 21,000 tons of chemical wastes in the canal.
- The wastes included hazardous substances that later migrated into surrounding soil, groundwater, surface water, and nearby residences.
- In 1953, Hooker sold part of the site to the Niagara Falls Board of Education with deed language disclosing prior disposal and purporting to disclaim Hooker’s liability and shift risk to the purchaser and successors.
- Subsequent construction and development (including utilities, a school, and residences) disturbed the site and contributed to migration pathways.
- In the 1970s, authorities detected contamination, declared a public health emergency, and evacuated roughly 950 families.
- Federal and state governments performed extensive response actions and sought recovery and declarations of liability under CERCLA and New York common-law public nuisance.
- After an earlier ruling finding OCC jointly and severally liable for CERCLA response costs, New York moved for partial summary judgment on OCC’s public nuisance liability and to defeat certain defenses.

## Issues

1. Whether OCC was liable under New York common law for creating a public nuisance by disposing of hazardous wastes that were released or threatened to be released into the environment.
2. Whether OCC could avoid public nuisance liability by selling the property to a public authority with deed provisions allocating risk and disclaiming OCC’s liability.
3. Whether defenses based on intervening/superseding causes and assumption of risk by the State barred liability or instead affected only damages.

## Decision

- The court granted New York’s motion for partial summary judgment on OCC’s liability for public nuisance.
- The court held that the release and threatened release of hazardous wastes from the site constituted an unreasonable interference with public health and safety and thus a public nuisance.
- The court rejected OCC’s “sale defense,” holding that transferring title and inserting deed disclaimers did not eliminate the creator’s public nuisance liability.
- The court rejected intervening/superseding cause arguments as a bar to liability, concluding that OCC’s disposal remained a substantial contributing cause of the hazardous condition.
- The court recognized that the State’s culpable conduct/assumption of risk could be considered in allocating financial responsibility, potentially reducing recoverable damages, but did not eliminate OCC’s liability.
- Damages and any diminution based on the State’s culpable conduct were reserved for later determination.

## Legal Principles

- Under New York law, a party that creates or substantially contributes to a condition that unreasonably interferes with a public right (including public health and safety) may be liable for public nuisance.
- Public nuisance liability focuses on creation or maintenance of the harmful condition and is not avoided solely by later conveyance of the property.
- Contractual risk-allocation or disclaimer language in a deed does not defeat the State’s ability to seek relief for interference with public rights.
- Subsequent development or governmental actions that contribute to harm do not necessarily sever causation where the defendant’s conduct created the hazardous condition.
- Culpable conduct by a governmental plaintiff may diminish recoverable damages through apportionment, without negating the defendant’s underlying nuisance liability.

## Conclusion

The court held OCC liable as a matter of law for creating a public nuisance at Love Canal and ruled that neither sale of the site nor deed disclaimers barred liability; any fault attributable to the State affected damages allocation, not the existence of nuisance liability.


United States v. Hooker Chems. & Plastics Corp., 722 F. Supp. 960 (W.D.N.Y. 1989)