STATE DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL, ET AL
v.
CITIES SERVICE CO.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this pollution control case, a retention dam on defendant's property broke on December 3, 1971, causing slimes, water, and mud to flow onto plaintiffs' properties and into local waterways. The court addressed defendant's motions to dismiss and strike, ultimately allowing negligence, negligence per se, and strict liability claims to proceed while striking the demand for punitive damages.
The court denied defendant's motions to dismiss and to strike allegations of strict liability and negligence per se, allowing these claims to proceed. However, the court granted defendant's motion to strike the prayer for punitive and exemplary damages, finding the complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to support such damages under applicable law.
[1] One who stores water on land does so at his own peril and is liable for damages caused by its escape, absent exceptions like acts of God.
[2] Allegations of negligence per se require specific factual averments demonstrating a violation of relevant statutes or regulations.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“one who brings water on land and there stores it in reservoirs, tanks, or other receptacles does so at his own peril, and subject to certain exceptions such as acts of God or the public enemy, is liable for any damages caused by the escape of such water even without fault on his part”
Establishes strict liability doctrine applicable to stored water and basis for allowing strict liability claim to proceed
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Cities Service Co. maintained a retention dam on its property in Polk County, Florida. On December 3, 1971, the dam broke or erupted, causin…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Wanton And Willful Disregard cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause came on to be heard before the court on defendant’s motions to dismiss, to strike, and for a more definite statement.
The complaint is in five counts, or as designated by plaintiffs as five causes of action. Each cause of action alleges damages to plaintiffs’ property when a retention dam on one of defendant’s ponds broke, or erupted on December 3, 1971, and the slimes, waters and mud maintained on defendant’s lands behind said retention dam flowed on to the property of plaintiffs and into the Whidden Creek and Peace River in Polk County.
The “first cause of action” is based on negligence. The second and third causes allege that the defendant has been negligent per se in failing to comply with certain rules of the department of pollution control. The fourth cause of action is based on the doctrine of strict liability. The second, third and fifth causes of action each contain a prayer for punitive and exemplary damages.
The defendant seeks to strike from the second and third causes of action the words, “per se,” and they further seek to strike the words, “strictly liable,” from the fourth cause of action and also seek to strike plaintiffs’ demand for punitive damages.
The court is of the opinion that one who brings water on land and there stores it in reservoirs, tanks, or other receptacles does so at his own peril, and subject to certain exceptions such as acts of God or the public enemy, is liable for any damages caused by the escape of such water even without fault on his part. Caldwell v. American Cyanamid, 32 Fla. Supp. 163.
Further, the court is of the opinion that the complaint fails to allege ultimate facts sufficient to charge the defendant with “willful and wanton disregard” of the rights of plaintiffs, nor does it allege any statutory authority or a compliance with §403.121, Florida Statutes, sufficient to invoke civil or criminal penalties. St. Regis Paper Company v. State of Florida, 237 So.2d 797.
*98It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the defendant’s motions to dismiss and for a more definite statement are denied.
The defendant’s motions to strike plaintiffs’ allegations of strict liability and negligence per se are denied.
The defendant’s motion to strike plaintiffs’ prayer for exemplary and punitive damages is granted.
It is further ordered that the defendant is allowed twenty days from the date of this order in which to answer.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- ST. Regis Paper Co. v. State, 237 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Caldwell v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 32 Fla. Supp. 163 (Hillsborough Cty. Cir. Ct. 1969)