One hundred forty-three residents of the Barnegat Pines Development area in Lacey Township, Ocean County, New Jersey, brought suit against Exxon Corporation and Richard E. and Susan M. Ritchie, who did business operating a gasoline station known as

Question

Lacey Exxon. The residents brought suit in nuisance, trespass, and under various environmental laws alleging that gasoline from Rule's service station, which had operated between 1959 and 1975 as a Texaco Station, had seeped into the groundwater and contaminated their wells. The residents had an expert witness, Albert D. Young, a consultant in petroleum distribution and a retired Exxon employee, who had 35 years of experience in overseeing, viewing, and evaluating the distribution, storage, and retail sale of gasoline. Young testified that the complaint of suspected gasoline contamination of wells in the present case was typical of the kind of situation he had frequently investigated. According to Young, the service station probably spilled gasoline "more frequently than not" between 1959 and 1975 and the spilled gasoline would have seeped to the groundwater. Young's opinion was based on his knowledge that such discharges were routine occurrences in probably all 200,000 service stations ever in existence. Also, after considering the results of soil gas studies showing the presence of petroleum vapors in the soil of the old tank field at the station, Young found it more probable than not that spills would have occurred during deliveries in the pre-1975 period because when tank sizes failed to keep pace with truck capacities, overfills were routine at all stations. Such spills could have gone undetected by the station owner. The jury returned a verdict of no liability in favor of both the Ritchies and Exxon. Was the jury's verdict correct? What case law could the appellate court apply in making its decision?

Answer 1

?We agree with plaintiffs that as area residents, they comprised a foreseeable class potentially harmed by any negligent discharge from the gas station, although the harm actually caused by the redlining per se was apparently minimal. Also, plaintiffs did present evidence attributing the well contamination found in some wells to the Rule/Texaco era, and it was the measured contamination, that in turn prompted the redlining. In our view, the nuisance claim against Rule could have been sustained by legitimate inferences from the evidence. We therefore reverse the dismissal of the nuisance claims and remand for further proceedings. Bahrle v. Exxon Corp., 652 A.2d 178 (N.J. Super. 1995).