ELR Citation: ELR 20037
No(s). 00-1453 et al (4th Cir. Aug 2, 2001)

The court holds that a district court properly denied an oil company's request for a new trial in a case concerning the company's petroleum pollution of a neighbor's property but that it erred in failing to award the neighbor prejudgment interest. At trial the jury returned a verdict finding that the oil company negligently stored or handled petroleum products on its property, which resulted in damages to the neighbor, but that the oil company did not trespass on the neighbor's property. The trial judge granted the oil company's motion for judgment as a matter of law, finding that the jury's conclusion that the oil company had not trespassed compelled the conclusion that none of the petroleum entered onto or physically affected the neighbor's property. The appellate court reversed the district court's holding and remanded for consideration of whether a new trial was warranted. The trial judge ordered a new trial but then recused himself. A second trial judge granted the motion to reconsider the order granting a new trial, but ultimately denied the oil company's motion for a new trial and did not award the neighbor prejudgment interest.

The court first holds that the second judge correctly concluded that the jury's findings were not inconsistent with each other or with the general verdict. To reconcile the finding that the oil company did not trespass on the neighbor's property with a finding that the company negligently allowed petroleum to spread into the neighbor's property, the court need only assume, as did the second trial judge, that the jury was not aware that a subsurface invasion into property could constitute a trespass on the property. The court next holds that the original trial judge did not base his decision to grant a new trial on the reconsideration of the admissibility of the neighbor's expert testimony, and, therefore, the second judge did not err in reconsidering the trial judge's grant of a new trial. The court also holds that evidence discovered by the oil company after the close of trial did not warrant a new trial. However, the court holds that the second judge erred in failing to award prejudgment interest. The neighbor adequately raised the issue of prejudgment interest by repeatedly requesting it in its motions for judgment. The court, therefore, remands that portion of the case for determination of prejudgment interest.

[A prior decision in this litigation is published at 28 ELR 20129.]

Counsel for Plaintiff
Allen C. Brotherton
Knox, Brotherton, Knox & Godfrey
817 E. Trade St., Charlotte NC 28202
(704) 372-1360

Counsel for Defendant
Richard E. Morton
Kilpatrick & Stockton
301 S. College St., Charlotte NC 28202
(704) 338-5000

Before Wilkins, Luttig, and Gregory, JJ.