palmer v. 3m corp. legal issues research memo
TRANSCRIPT
3M Corporation Office of General Counsel
3M Center, Building 1
St. Paul, MN 55144-1000
651-731-1000 or [email protected]
INTRAOFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Lisa Fulton, J. D., Assistant General Counsel
FROM: Christie L. Thompson, Paralegal
RE: Palmer v. 3M Corp. – Legal Issues Research Memorandum
DATE: May 29, 2009
QUESTIONS PRESENTED AND BRIEF ANSWERS
I. Will Plaintiffs be able to prove that the case should be a class action?
No, Plaintiffs likely will not be able to prove that the case should be certified
as a class action because they likely will not be able to prove that they
constitute a class that is so numerous that joinder of all of the members is
impractical.
II. Will Plaintiffs be able to prove that 3M Corporation is liable to them for their
claim for PFCs removal costs damage, and, if so, then what remedies are they
entitled to receive?
Yes, some Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that 3M Corporation is liable
to them for their claim for perfluorochemicals (PFCS) removal costs damage,
and, consequently, they likely will be entitled to receive several remedies.
Some Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that 3M Corporation is liable,
under Minnesota Statutes Section 115B.04 strict liability for hazardous
substance removal costs, to them for their PFCs removal costs damage. First,
3M Corporation is the releaser of PFCs. Second, their claimed removal costs
likely will be determined to have resulted from such. Third and lastly,
their claimed removal costs likely will be determined to be necessary and
reasonable, but only if their water supply is deemed to be hazardous.
Consequently, some Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled
to receive compensatory damages and to be granted equitable relief for
litigation costs and attorneys’ fees, equitable relief for interest, and equitable
2
and injunctive relief for an order requiring 3M Corporation to notice them and
pay such.
III. Will Plaintiffs be able to prove that 3M Corporation is liable to them for
their claim for economic loss damage, and, if so, then what remedies are they
entitled to receive?
Yes, some Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that 3M Corporation is liable
to them for their economic loss damage, and, consequently, they likely will be
entitled to receive several remedies. Some Plaintiffs likely will be able to
prove that 3M Corporation is liable, under willful and wanton entry of PFCs
into real property, to them for their economic loss damage. First, 3M
Corporation owed Plaintiffs a duty to not cause the entry of PFCs into their
water supplies. Second, 3M Corporation breached such duty. Third,
Plaintiffs who possess water supplies that are deemed to be hazardous have
suffered from an actionable physical injury to their real properties with
economic loss damage. Fourth and lastly, 3M Corporation’s breach of such
duty is the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ such injury. Consequently, Plaintiffs
likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive compensatory
damages and punitive damages and to be granted equitable relief for interest
and equitable and injunctive relief for an order requiring 3M Corporation to
notice them and pay such.
IV. Will Plaintiffs be able to prove that 3M Corporation is liable to them for
their claim for intentional failure to remove PFCs from their water supplies
damage, and, if so, then what remedies are they are entitled to receive?
Yes, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that 3M Corporation is liable to
them for their claim for failure to remove PFCs from their water supplies
damage, and, consequently, they likely will be entitled to receive several
remedies. Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that 3M Corporation is liable,
under Minnesota Statutes Section 115B.04 strict liability, for hazardous
substance removal costs as intentional failure to remove PFCs from real
property to them for their intentional failure to remove PFCs from their water
supplies damage. First, 3M Corporation owed Plaintiffs a duty to remove
PFCs from their water supplies. Second and lastly, 3M Corporation breached
such duty by failing to take such act. Consequently, Plaintiffs likely will be
able to prove that they are entitled to receive compensatory damages and
punitive damages and to be granted equitable relief for interest and equitable
and injunctive relief for an order requiring 3M Corporation to notice them and
pay such.
3
STATEMENT OF FACTS
What Perfluorochemicals Are
The Perfluorochemicals (PFCs) perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid
(PFOA), and perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) have been used worldwide in household and
industrial products, including stain repellents, lubricants, and fire retardants and
suppressants, since the mid-1950s. They have been manufactured and used in U. S. by
3M Corporation at its plants in Cottage Grove, Minnesota and Decateur, Alabama and by
Dupont Corporation at its plants in Parkersburg, West Virginia, Circleville, Ohio,
Deepwater and Parlin, New Jersey, and Fayetteville, North Carolina. Clean Water Action,
PFCs Factsheet, http://www.cleanwateraction.org/publication/pfc-factsheet (last visited
April 10, 2009); and Dupont Corporation, Our Company Dupont Worldwide, U. S. A.,
http://www2.dupont.com/ Our_Company/en_US/worldwide/us_country.html (last visited
April 10, 2009).
Why 3M Corporation Is Liable For Releasing PFCs Into Plaintiffs’ Water Supplies
3M Corporation admittedly disposed of its waste containing PFCs from its Cottage Grove,
Minnesota Plant in a manner that allowed PFCs to enter into the surrounding water
supplies, which included those of Plaintiffs. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site, at 2 (Minn. Pollution
Control Ag. Dec. 22, 2008) (decision); PFBA In Groundwater of Southeast Metro. Area,
Dec. 18, 2008, http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/pfbasemetro.html; and
Bob Shaw, Judge Further Narrows 3M Lawsuit, Pioneer Press, B, 1 (Jan. 21, 2009),
http://www.pioneerplanet.com. Such wastes were placed at these five waste disposal sites:
1) Former Washington County Sanitary Landfill in Lake Elmo; 2) its Oakdale Disposal Site, at
the former Abresch Dump, in Oakdale; 3) its Woodbury Disposal Site; 4) on-site; and
5) Pig’s Eye Dump in Southeast St. Paul.
Although the concentrations of PFCs in the surrounding water supplies are generally very low
and vary widely by location, there are two areas of the surrounding water supplies where
significant PFCs - contamination exists (PFCs – contaminated surrounding water supplies).
The Northern PFCs - Contaminated Surrounding Water Supplies Area, which is located in
Northern Washington County, originated from Former Washington County Sanitary
Landfill and 3M Corporation Oakdale Disposal Site. PFBA In Groundwater of Southeast
Metro. Area, Dec. 18, 2008, http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/
pfbasemetro.html. Plaintiffs own real properties in this area. Bob Shaw, 3M’s Suit’s Big
Issue: Who Got Hurt?, Pioneer Press, A, 1 (March 25, 2007), www.pioneerplanet.com. Nearby
water supplies are contaminated with PFOA and PFOS, PFBA In Groundwater of Southeast
Metro. Area, supra, including those of over 200 Lake Elmo residents, who possess water supplies
with PFCs levels that are deemed to be hazardous by the Minnesota Department of Health. Paul
Walsh & Tom Meersman, Health Department Will Measure PFC Levels In Adults Near 3M
Plant, Landfills, Star Tribune (July 9, 2008), www.startribune.com/templates/Print_This_Story?
sid=24213089. Farther water supplies are contaminated with PFBA.
4
PFCs – Contaminated Water Supplies Areas
Surrounding 3M Corporation’s Waste Disposal Sites For 3M CorporationCGMP
PFBA In Groundwater of Southeast Metro. Area, Dec. 18, 2008, http://www.health.state.mn.us/
divs/eh/hazardous/topics/pfbasemetro.html.
5
The Southern PFCs – Contaminated Surrounding Water Supplies Area, in Southern
Washington and Northern Dakota Counties, originated from 3M Corporation Woodbury
Disposal Site and possibly a site in Cottage Grove where a PFCs - based fire retardant was
used at an industrial real property. PFBA has been detected in all municipal wells in Cottage
Grove, St. Paul Park, and Newport and some municipal wells in S. St. Paul and Hastings. PFOA
exists in a small area of private wells in Cottage Grove where such possible additional PFCs
source is located. PFBA In Groundwater of Southeast Metro. Area, supra.
Why The Minnesota Judicial Branch Is Deciding PFCs Liability and
Why The Public Could Be Concerned
PFCs have been deemed to be hazardous substance by Minnesota Department of Health
(MDH) because they could pose health risks to humans when consumed in high
concentrations. There is not a great deal known about them since they are relatively new. PFCs
accumulate where they are placed since they do not decompose in the environment, PFBA In
Groundwater of Southeast Metro. Area, Dec. 18, 2008, http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/
hazardous/topics/pfbasemetro.html, and they decompose slowly in humans, with an estimated
half-life (the time required for half of a compound to break down into its parts, and,
therefore, no longer be harmful to organisms) of 8.67 years. Jeff Ruch, State Pays Scientist
$325,000 To Resign, Feb. 26, 2006, http://www.peer.org/news/print_detail.php?row_id=640.
Studies of exposed animals have shown the following: 1) in high concentrations, PFCs can cause
harmful changes in the liver and other organs and developmental problems, such as delays in
growth and maturation in the offspring of exposed female animals; and 2) in high concentrations
and over a long period of time, PFOA and PFOS can cause cancer. Studies of exposed
manufacturing workers have shown that they have not suffered adverse effects. Perfluorochemicals and Health Overview, Feb. 9, 2009, http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/
hazardous/topics/pfcshealth.html. MDH’s guidelines for the concentration of a PFC that
can safely exist in consumed water are as follows: 1) the Health Risk Limits (HRLs) for PFOA
and PFOS are .4 micrograms per liter (ug/L) and .2 ug/L, respectively; and 2) the Health Based
Value (HBV) for PFBA is 7 ug/L. PFBA In Groundwater of Southeast Metro. Area, supra.
The History of PFCs In Minnesota
3M Corporation began to dispose of wastes containing the hazardous substances PFCs and
volatile organic compounds, or acids, (VOCs) from its Cottage Grove, Minnesota Plant at
its past waste disposal sites in the mid-1950s. Perfluorochemicals and Health Overview,
Feb. 9, 2009, http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/pfcshealth.html. However,
technology to detect and measure PFCs did not exist until sometime before 2000. In 1963,
the former Minnesota Water Pollution Control Commission informed 3M Corporation that
such waste disposal practice created a relatively high risk of contaminating surrounding
water supplies with VOCs. Consequently, 3M Corporation promptly and voluntarily built
clay and/or limestone pits for future wastes. Within a few years, when VOCs were detected
in the surrounding water supplies, it excavated and either deposited in a safe manner or
6
incinerated preexisting waste and installed water removal and barrier wells. Neither party
indicated that there was an intervening cause. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site, at 2
(Minn. Pollution Control Ag. Dec. 22, 2008) (decision). By 1975, 3M Corporation had mostly
stopped using such waste disposal practice, Bob Shaw, 3M’s Suit’s Big Issue: Who Got Hurt?,
Pioneer Press, A, 1 (March 25, 2007), http://www.pioneerplanet.com, but continued to do such at
its Cottage Grove, Minnesota Plant until 2004. Pl.’s 1st Compl. P 32 (Oct. 8, 2004). During
the 1980s to present, 3M Corporation, often at the direction of Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) has conducted multitudes of specialized, costly, tests to determine
the existence and concentration of PFCs throughout the surrounding water supplies, and
has buried, rezoned as open space, and secured with fencing and signage its former waste
deposit sites. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site, at 3. In 2000, 3M Corporation disclosed
the presence of PFCs in the environment, including the water supplies surrounding
its former waste disposal sites, that had occurred as a consequence of its past waste disposal
practice for its Cottage Grove, Minnesota Plant, and PFCs’ possible health hazards. Id. at
2. In 2002, 3M Corporation stopped manufacturing and using PFCs. Perfluorochemicals and
Health Overview, supra. In 2007, after MPCA, MDH, and 3M Corporation investigations
and negotiations, 3M Woodbury Disposal Site, which had begun in late 2004, PFBA In
Groundwater of Southeast Metro. Area, Dec. 18, 2008, http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/
hazardous/topics/pfbasemetro.html, 3M Corporation began to implement its MPCA-
mandated investigation and clean-up plan of its former waste disposal sites except at
its Cottage Grove, Minnesota Plant. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site, at 7.
The Current Civil Case That Was Filed By Washington County Real Property Owners
Affected parties filed Felicia Palmer v. 3M Corporation, case number C2-04-6309, in
Minnesota’s Tenth Judicial District on October 8, 2004. Minn. Jud. Branch, Pub. Access To
Case Rec. Of Minn. Jud. Branch, www.pa.courts.state.mn.us/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=
576297025; and Pl.’s 1st Compl. P 105 (October 8, 2004). A companion case, Lake Elmo Land
Development, L.L.C. v. 3M Corp., was filed in 2007. Minn. Jud. Branch, supra. Plaintiffs
include 8 parties who own real property in the Northern PFCs - Contaminated
Surrounding Water Supplies Area; if class action status had been granted, then an additional
over 60,000 Washington County residents would have become parties. Bob Shaw, 3M’s Suit’s
Big Issue: Who Got Hurt, Pioneer Press, A, 1 (March 25, 2007), http://www.pioneerplanet.com.
Plaintiffs have made several claims for relief. First, Plaintiffs claim that the case should be
certified as a class action. Pl.’s 1st Compl. P 64 (Oct. 8, 2004). Plaintiffs also made claims for
several damages that were allegedly caused by 3M Corporation’s physical injury to their real
properties or themselves that resulted from 3M Corporation’s causing of PFCs to enter into their
water supplies. Second, Plaintiffs claim economic loss damage as past and future the lesser of
the dimunition in their real properties’ property values or restoration costs. Pl.’s 1st Compl. P 87
& 98. Third, Plaintiffs claim physical pain damages as possessing a significantly increased risk
of contracting a serious latent disease(s) that result from a subcellular physical injury and
the financial expenses of the diagnosis, preventative and consequential treatment, and
monitoring of the physical injury. Pl.’s 1st Compl. P 87 & 91 – 92. Plaintiffs offer as proof
inconclusive and limited scientific research that shows that PFCs could cause a subcellular
7
physical injury that takes an undeterminable number of years to cause a physical injury to
persons that is able to be verified to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Bob Shaw, 3M
Asks Judge To Toss Lawsuit Related To Chemicals In Water, Pioneer Press, B, 5 (Dec. 17, 2008),
http://www.pioneerplanet.com. Fourth and last, Plaintiffs claim emotional distress damages as
severe and significant emotional pain and suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, fear, loss of
enjoyment of life, annoyance, inconvenience, and the financial expenses of the diagnosis and
treatment of emotional and physical injuries. Pl.’s 1st Compl. P 87. Plaintiff Karen Paulson
alleges to have experienced and continue to experience great anxiety and has received and could
be continuing to receive an unspecified type and quantity of emotional health treatment.
Bob Shaw, Health Claims In 3M Suit Rejected, Pioneer Press, A, 2 (Dec. 19, 2008),
http://www.pioneerplanet.com.
DISCUSSION
PLAINTIFFS LIKELY WILL BE ABLE TO PROVE THAT 3M CORPORATION
IS LIABLE TO THEM FOR THEIR CLAIMED DAMAGES FOR PFCS REMOVAL
COSTS, ECONOMIC LOSS, AND INTENTIONAL FAILURE TO REMOVE PFCS
FROM THEIR WATER SUPPLIES, AND, AS A RESULT, THEY LIKELY WILL BE
ENTITLED TO RECEIVE SEVERAL REMEDIES BECAUSE ADEQUATE PROOF
EXISTS THAT 3M CORPORATION’S ACTS AND FAILURES TO TAKE ACTS IN
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES CAUSED PLAINTIFFS’ SUCH DAMAGES.
******************************************************************************
I. Class Action Certification
The first issue is whether Plaintiffs will be able to prove that the court should certify the
case as a class action.
In order to be granted class action certification under Minnesota statutory law, Plaintiffs
must prove that the following: 1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all of the members
is impractical; 2) there are questions of law or fact in common to the class; 3) the claims of
the representatives of the parties are typical of the claims of the class; and
4) the representatives of the parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of
the class. Minn. R. Civ. P. 23.01(a) – (d).
8
The Class Is So Numerous That Joinder of All of The Members Is Impractical
Plaintiffs will be able to prove that their circumstances meet the requirements for class
action certification if they can prove that the class is so numerous that joinder of all of
the members is impractical (class is so numerous). Minn. R. Civ. P. Rule 23.01(a). Based on
Minnesota caselaw, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that their circumstances meet
the requirements for class action certification when these factors are analyzed in favor of
the class being so numerous: 1) the size of the putative class; 2) the size of the class
members’ individual claims; 3) the inconvenience of trying individual actions; and
4) the nature of the action.
Plaintiffs will be able to prove that the class is so numerous if they can prove that the size of
the putative class is sufficiently numerous. Based on Minneota caselaw, a class is
so numerous when the size of the putative class is sufficiently numerous. The size of
the putative class has been found to be sufficiently numerous when Plaintiffs provided
an estimate of the class members as tens of thousands of persons with the basis of such as
Defendant’s number of clients during the time period and the likely percentage who are
class members. Although the exact number need not be known, Plaintiffs must offer
a good faith estimate of the size of the putative class, which is based on at least some
evidence or a reasonable estimate. Mitchell v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., No. CT 02-017299, 2003
WL 23786983, at *4 (Minn. Dist. Dec. 22, 2003). In this Minnesota case, Defendant was held
liable, under fraud, for Plaintiffs’ economic loss damage because it did not charge them
the ordinary resissue rate for a title insurance policy on a real property with a preexisting title
insurance policy. Id. at 2.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will not be able to prove that the size of the putative
class is sufficiently numerous so as to require class action certification because there likely
is not a significantly large number of legally similarly-situated Plaintiffs. First, there likely
will be determined to be few possible Plaintiffs since there are few persons who own real
property in PFCs – contaminated water supplies areas. Second, the possible Plaintiffs’ abilities
to prove that they suffered an injury for which there is a remedy would vary since the rates of
PFCs contamination in the PFCs – contaminated water supplies areas vary greatly and PFCs are
possibly harmful to humans only when they are consumed in high concentrations. PFBA In
Groundwater of Southeast Metro. Area, Dec. 18, 2008, http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/
hazardous/topics/pfbasemetro.html; Perfluorochemicals and Health Overview,
http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/pfcshealth.html; and Pl.’s 1st Compl,
(Oct. 8, 2004).
Therefore, in the current case, Plaintiffs likely will not be able to prove that the case
should be certified as a class action because they likely will not be able to prove that they
constitute a class that is so numerous that joinder of all of the members is impractical.
9
II. PFCs Removal Costs Damage
The second issue is whether Plaintiffs will be able to prove their claim for PFCs removal
costs damage that was caused by 3M Corporation’s release of PFCs from its facility that
resulted in 3M Corporation’s statutory strict liability to them for such, and, consequently,
what remedies they are entitled to receive.
In order to prove their claim for PFCs removal costs damage, which is their costs of
removing from their water supplies PFCs that were caused to enter into them by 3M
Corporation’s past waste disposal practice for its Cottage Grove, Minnesota Plant,
Plaintiffs must prove that such was caused by 3M Corporation’s release of PFCs from
its facility that resulted in its statutory strict liability for such. The elements of statutory
strict liability for hazardous substance removal costs are as follows: 1) Defendant (3M
Corporation) is the person who is responsible for the release of a hazardous substance
(PFCs) from its facility; 2) Plainiffs’ claimed hazardous substance removal costs have
resulted from such release; and 3) Plaintiffs’ claimed hazardous substance removal costs
are necessary and reasonable. Minn. Stat. S 115B.04(1)(2).
1. Defendant Is the Person Who Is Responsible
For The Release of A Hazardous Substance From Its Facility
First, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that Defendant is liable to them for their hazardous
substance removal costs damage if they can prove that Defendant is the person who is
responsible for the release of hazardous substance from its facility. No rule of law is
required because 3M Corporation has admitted its responsibility for such.
In the current case, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that 3M Corporation is the person who
is responsible for the release of PFCs from its facility because 3M Corporation has
admitted and taken action on such. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site, at 2 (Minn. Pollution Control
Ag. Dec. 22, 2008) (decision); and Bob Shaw, Judge Further Narrows 3M Lawsuit, Pioneer
Press, B, 1 (Jan. 21, 2009), http://www.pioneerplanet.com.
2. Plaintiffs’ Claimed Removal Costs Have Resulted From
3M Corporation’s Release of PFCs From Its Facility
Second, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that Defendant is liable to them for
their hazardous substance removal costs damage if they can prove that their claimed
hazardous substance removal costs have resulted from Defendant’s release of hazardous
substance from its facility. PFBA In Groundwater of Southeast Metro. Area, Dec. 18, 2008,
http://www.health.state. mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/pfbasemetro.html; Minn. Stat.
S 115B.02(17); and Musicland Group, Inc. v. Ceridian Corp., 508 N.W.2d 524, 528 & 533
(Minn. App. 1993). Based on Minnesota commonlaw and administrative law, Plaintiffs will be
able to prove that their claimed hazardous substance removal costs have resulted from
Defendant’s release of hazardous substance from its facility if they prove the existence of
these circumstances: 1) they own or owned at some point real property in an area that
10
has been determined by such an expert to have been affected by Defendant’s release of
hazardous substance from its facility; PFBA In Groundwater of Southeast Metro. Area, supra;
and 2) their hazardous substance removal efforts are determined by such an expert to
have resulted and/or will result from such release. Minn. Stat. S 115B.02(17); and
Musicland Group, Inc., 508 N.W.2d at 528 & 533.
First, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that their claimed hazardous substance removal costs
have resulted from Defendant’s release of hazardous substance from its facility if they own
real properties in an area that has been determined by such an expert to have been affected
by Defendant’s release of hazardous substance from its facility. PFBA In Groundwater of
Southeast Metro. Area, Dec. 18, 2008, www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/
pfbasemetro.html.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that their claimed PFCs removal
costs have resulted from 3M Corporation’s release of PFCs from its facility because they
own real property in the Northern PFCs – Contaminated Surrounding Water Supplies
Area. PFBA In Groundwater of Southeast Metro. Area, Dec. 18, 2008, www.health.state.mn.us/
divs/eh/hazardous/topics/pfbasemetro.html.
Second and last, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that their claimed hazardous substance
removal costs have resulted from Defendant’s release of hazardous substance from
its facility if their hazardous substance removal efforts are determined by such an expert to
have resulted from such release. Minn. Stat. S 115B.02(17); and Musicland Group, Inc. v.
Ceridian Corp., 508 N.W.2d 524, 528 & 533 (Minn. App. 1993). Based on Minnesota
statutory law and caselaw, Plaintiffs’ hazardous substance removal efforts will be
determined by such an expert to have resulted from Defendant’s release of hazardous
substance from its facility when their hazardous substance removal efforts have fulfilled
and/or will fulfill a purpose of hazardous substance remediation. Hazardous substance
removal efforts have fulfilled a purpose of hazardous substance remediation if they have
accomplished and/or will accomplish at least one of the following: 1) the removal of
hazardous substance from water supplies, including provision of alternate water
supplies; 2) actions that are necessary to test, analyze, evaluate, and monitor
a release of hazardous substance; 3) disposal or processing of removed material; Minn. Stat. S 115B.02(17); or 4) other actions that are necessary to prevent or
mitigate damage to public health that might otherwise result from a release,
including the hiring of a professional consultant. Minn. Stat. S 115B.02(17); and
Musicland Group, Inc., 508 N.W.2d at 528 & 533.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that their PFCs removal efforts
are determined by such an expert to have resulted from 3M Corporation’s release of PFCs
from its waste disposal sites for its Cottage Grove, Minnesota Plant because their PFCs
removal efforts likely have fulfilled a purpose of PFCs remediation. First, PFCs removal
efforts likely have fulfilled a purpose of PFCs remediation because they have
accomplished at least one of the following: 1) the installation, maintenance, and
utilization costs of permanent water supplies filtration systems and/or the provision
of alternate water supplies; 2) the installation, maintenance, and utilization costs of
11
PFCs testing and evaluating systems for water supplies, or the service costs for such;
and 3) the services of a professional consultant. Last, Plaintiffs’ PFCs removal efforts
likely fulfilled a purpose of remediation because they likely have been able to make
informed, rational decisions regarding such because they likely have received adequate
assistance from MDH, MPCA, and other PFCs removal experts since these circumstances
have been in litigation since 2004. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site (Minn. Pollution Control Ag.
Dec. 22, 2008) (decision); and PFBA In Groundwater of Southeast Metro. Area, Dec. 18, 2008,
http://www.health. state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/pfbasemetro.html; and Pl.’s 1st Compl,
(Oct. 8, 2004).
3. Plaintiffs’ Claimed PFCs Removal Costs Are Necessary and Reasonable
Third and last, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that Defendant is liable to them for
their hazardous substance removal costs damage if they can prove that their claimed
hazardous substance removal costs are necessary and reasonable. Minn. Stat.
S 115B.02(17); Musicland Group, Inc. v. Ceridian Corp., 508 N.W.2d 524, 528 & 533
(Minn. App. 1993); 3M Woodbury Disposal Site (Minn. Pollution Control Ag. Dec. 22, 2008)
(decision); and PFBA In Groundwater of Southeast Metro. Area, Dec. 18, 2008,
http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/pfbasemetro.html. In this Minnesota
case, under Minnesota Statutes Section 115B.04 strict liability and negligence,
respectively, Defendant was held liable to Plaintiff for its hazardous substance removal
costs damage and economic loss damage that it incurred while conducting dewatering
activities as a result of its water supply being contaminated by circumstances that
Defendant had created. Id. at 528.
First, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that Defendant is liable to them for their hazardous
substance removal costs damage if they can prove that their claimed hazardous substance
removal costs are necessary. Minn. Stat. S 115B.02(17); and Musicland Group, Inc. v.
Ceridian Corp., 508 N.W.2d 524, 533 (Minn. App. 1993). Based on Minnesota statutory law
and caselaw, Plaintiffs claimed hazardous substance removal costs are necessary when
their hazardous substance removal efforts have fulfilled a purpose of remediation.
The circumstances in which hazardous substance removal efforts have fulfilled a purpose
of hazardous substance remediation have been previously discussed in this memorandum
at the previous page.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that their claimed PFCs
removal costs are necessary because their PFCs removal efforts likely fulfilled a purpose of
PFCs remediation. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site (Minn. Pollution Control Ag. Dec. 22, 2008)
(decision); PFBA In Groundwater of Southeast Metro. Area, Dec. 18, 2008, http://www.health.
state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/pfbasemetro.html; and Pl.’s 1st Compl, (Oct. 8, 2004).
The circumstances in which Plaintiffs’ PFCs removal efforts likely have fulfilled a purpose
of PFCs remediation have been previously discussed in this memorandum at
the previous page.
12
Second and last, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that Defendant is liable to them for
their hazardous substance removal costs damage if they can prove that their claimed
hazardous substance removal costs are reasonable. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site (Minn.
Pollution Control Ag. Dec. 22, 2008) (decision); PFBA In Groundwater of Southeast Metro.
Area, Dec. 18, 2008, http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/pfbasemetro.html;
and Musicland Group, Inc .v. Ceridian Corp., 508 N.W.2d 524, 533 (Minn. App. 1993).
Based on Minnesota administrative law and caselaw, hazardous substance removal costs are
reasonable when they satisfy the following requirements: 1) they were performed in
a reasonable manner; 3M Woodbury Disposal Site; and PFBA In Groundwater of Southeast
Metro. Area, supra; and 2) they were nonduplicative of the efforts of the responsible
government agencies. Musicland Group, Inc., 508 N.W.2d at 533.
First, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that their claimed hazardous substance removal
costs are reasonable if their hazardous substance removal efforts were and/or will be
performed in a reasonable manner. Based on Minnesota administrative law and commonlaw,
removal efforts were performed in a reasonable manner when they satisfy the following
requirements: 1) it is determined that they were performed in a reasonable manner by such
an expert; and 2) they were performed on water supplies that are deemed to be hazardous.
3M Woodbury Disposal Site (Minn. Pollution Control Ag. Dec. 22, 2008) (decision); and PFBA
In Groundwater of Southeast Metro. Area, Dec. 18, 2008, http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/
hazardous/topics/pfbasemetro.html.
First, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that their claimed hazardous substance removal costs
are reasonable if their hazardous substance removal efforts were performed in
a reasonable manner by it being determined that they were performed in a reasonable
manner by such an expert. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site (Minn. Pollution Control Ag. Dec. 22,
2008) (decision).
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that their PFCs removal
efforts were performed in a reasonable manner by it being determined that they
were performed in a reasonable manner by such an expert because Plaintiffs likely have
been able to make informed, rational decisions regarding their PFCs removal efforts
because they likely have received adequate assistance from PFCs removal experts since
these circumstances have been in litigation since 2004. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site (Minn.
Pollution Control Ag. Dec. 22, 2008) (decision); and Pl.’s 1st Compl. (Oct. 8, 2004).
Second and last, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that their claimed hazardous substance
removal costs are reasonable if their hazardous substance removal efforts were performed
in a reasonable manner by them being performed only on water supplies that are deemed
hazardous by MDH. Plaintiffs’ hazardous substance removal efforts were performed in
a reasonable manner only if they were performed on water supplies that are deemed
hazardous by MDH because it is reasonable to expect a business to remove hazardous
substance from water supplies only if hazardous substance exists at a concentration level
that is at least significantly possibly dangerous to health. Proof that such is the expectation
of our society is that our responsible government agencies, MPCA and MDH, possess
responsibilities and powers which reflect such. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site (Minn. Pollution
13
Control Ag. Dec. 22, 2008) (decision); and PFBA In Groundwater of Southeast Metro. Area,
Dec. 18, 2008, http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/pfbasemetro.html. It is
reasonable and good public policy that the same duty of care that is expected of
government agencies be applied to businesses. First, no significant government interest
would be served by not doing such since Americans do not expect to be protected from acts
that are not significantly likely to injure their health. Second and last, if businesses were
held to the higher duty of care, then they would have a significant burden placed on
their finances, time, and effort, and, consequently, they likely would be forced to either
no longer conduct business or charge higher prices for their products or services.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that their claimed PFCs
removal costs are reasonable because their PFCs removal efforts were performed in
a reasonable manner by them being performed only on water supplies that are deemed
hazardous by MDH. Plaintiffs’ PFCs removal efforts likely were performed only on water
supplies that are deemed hazardous because Plaintiffs likely have been able to make
informed, rational decisions regarding their PFCs removal efforts because they likely have
received adequate assistance from PFCs removal experts since these circumstances have
been in litigation since 2004. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site (Minn. Pollution Control Ag.
Dec. 22, 2008) (decision); PFBA In Groundwater of Southeast Metro. Area, Dec. 18, 2008,
http://www.health.state. mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/pfbasemetro.html; and Pl.’s 1st Compl.
(Oct. 8, 2004).
Second and last, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that their claimed hazardous substance
removal costs are reasonable if their hazardous substance removal efforts were
nonduplicative of those of the responsible government agencies, MPCA and MDH. Musicland Group, Inc. v. Ceridian Corp., 508 N.W.2d 524, 533 (Minn. App. 1993).
Based on Minnesota commonlaw and administrative law, Plaintiffs likely will be able to
prove that their hazardous substance removal efforts were nonduplicative of those of
the responsible government agencies when such is determined by the responsible
government agencies. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site (Minn. Pollution Control Ag. Dec. 22,
2008) (decision); Perfluorochemicals and Health Overview, Feb. 9, 2009, http://www.health.
state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/pfcshealth.html.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that their claimed PFCs removal
costs are reasonable because they likely will be able to prove that their PFCs removal
efforts were nonduplicative of those of the responsible government agencies. 3M Woodbury
Disposal Site (Minn. Pollution Control Ag. Dec. 22, 2008) (decision); Perfluorochemicals and
Health Overview, Feb. 9, 2009, http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/
pfcshealth.html; and Bob Shaw, Judge Further Narrows 3M Lawsuit, Pioneer Press, B, 1 (Jan.
21, 2009), http://www.pioneerplanet.com. First, there has been no claim of such. Id. Second,
Plaintiffs likely have been able to make informed, rational decisions regarding their PFCs
removal efforts because they likely have received adequate assistance from PFCs removal
experts since these circumstances have been in litigation since 2004. 3M Woodbury Disposal
Site; PFBA In Groundwater of Southeast Metro. Area, Dec. 18, 2008, http://www.health.state.
mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/pfbasemetro.html; and Pl.’s 1st Compl. (Oct. 8, 2004).
14
As a result of Plaintiffs likely being able to prove that 3M Corporation is liable to them for
their PFCs removal costs damage, Plaintiffs likely will be entitled to receive or be granted
several remedies, if they prove the specific criteria of each remedy.
1. Compensatory Damages
First, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to compensatory damages
for their hazardous substance removal costs damage in an amount that is necessary and
reasonable if they can prove that these circumstances exist: 1) Defendant is statutorily
strictly liable for their hazardous substance removal costs; and 2) the amount of their claim
is necessary and reasonable. Edward J. Kionka, Torts In A Nutshell, West Publishing, 1992,
S 9-1; Minn. Stat. SS 115B.04(1)(2) & S 115B.02(17); Musicland Group, Inc. v. Ceridian
Corp., 508 N.W.2d 524, 528 & 533 (Minn. App. 1993); 3M Woodbury Disposal Site (Minn.
Pollution Control Ag. Dec. 22, 2008) (decision); and PFBA In Groundwater of Southeast Metro.
Area, Dec. 18, 2008, http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/pfbasemetro.html.
First, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive comp. damages for
their hazardous substance removal costs damage if Defendant is held statutorily strictly
liable for such. Edward J. Kionka, Torts In A Nutshell, West Publishing, 1992, S 9-1; and
Minn. Stat. S 115B.04(1)(2). Whether Defendant will be held statutorily strictly liable for
Plaintiffs’ hazardous substance removal costs has been previously discussed in
this memorandum at the previous pages of this section.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to compensatory
damages for their PFCs removal costs damage because 3M Corporation likely will be held
statutorily strictly liable for such. Whether 3M Corporation will be held statutorily strictly liable
for Plaintiffs’ PFCs removal costs has been previously discussed in this memorandum at
the previous pages of this section.
Second and last, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive comp.
damages for their hazardous substance removal costs damage in an amount that is
necessary and reasonable if the amount of their claim is necessary and reasonable. Based
upon Minnesota statutory law, caselaw, and administrative law, the amount of Plaintiffs’
claim likely will be determined to be necessary and reasonable when it is based on
hazardous substance removal costs that were incurred for necessary and reasonable
hazardous substance removal efforts. Minn. Stat. S 115B.02(17); Musicland Group, Inc.
v. Ceridian Corp., 508 N.W.2d 524, 528 & 533 (Minn. App. 1993); 3M Woodbury Disposal
Site (Minn. Pollution Control Ag. Dec. 22, 2008) (decision); and PFBA In Groundwater of
Southeast Metro. Area, Dec. 18, 2008, http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/
pfbasemetro.html. The rules of law regarding whether the amount of Plaintiffs’ claim for
their hazardous substance removal costs is necessary and reasonable have been previously
discussed in this memorandum at pages 10 – 13.
15
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive
compensatory damages for their PFCs removal costs damage in an amount that is
necessary and reasonable because the amount of their claim likely will be determined to be
necessary and reasonable because it likely will be based on PFCs removal costs that were
incurred for necessary and reasonable PFCs removal efforts. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site
(Minn. Pollution Control Ag. Dec. 22, 2008) (decision); PFBA In Groundwater of Southeast
Metro. Area, Dec. 18, 2008, http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/
pfbasemetro.html; Pl.’s 1st Compl, (Oct. 8, 2004); Perfluorochemicals and Health Overview,
Feb. 9, 2009, http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/pfcshealth.html; and Bob
Shaw, Judge Further Narrows 3M Lawsuit, Pioneer Press, B, 1 (Jan. 21, 2009),
http://www.pioneerplanet.com. The application of the rules of law regarding whether
the amount of Plaintiffs’ claim for their hazardous substance removal costs is necessary
and reasonable to these circumstances has been previously discussed in this memorandum
at pages 10 – 13.
2. Equitable Relief For Litigation Expenses
Second, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to be granted equitable relief
for litigation costs and attorneys’ fees (litigation expenses) for their hazardous substance
removal costs damage in an amount that is necessary and reasonable if they can prove that
these circumstances exist: 1) they are the prevailing party in an action under Minnesota
Statutes Section 115B.04; and 2) the amount of their claim is necessary and reasonable. Minn. Stat. S 115B.14; and Minn. R. Civ. P. 54.04.
First, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to be granted litigation expenses
for their hazardous substance removal costs damage if they are the prevailing party in
an action under Minnesota Statutes Section 115B.04. Minn. Stat. S 115B.14; and Minn. R.
Civ. P. 54.04. Based on Minnesota statutory law, the prevailing party in an action is entitled
to be granted litigation costs when a statute expressly authorizes such. Minn. R. Civ. P.
54.04. The prevailing party in an action under Minnesota Statutes Section 115B.04 is
expressly authorized to be granted litigation expenses if it makes a motion for such. Minn.
Stat. S 115B.14. Whether Plaintiffs likely will be the prevailing party in an action under
Minnesota Statutes Section 115B.04 has been previously discussed in this memorandum at
the previous pages of this section.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to be granted
litigation expenses for their PFCs removal costs damage because they likely will be the
prevailing party in an action that arose under Minnesota Statutes Section 115B.04. Whether Plaintiffs likely will be the prevailing party in an action that arose under Minnesota
Statutes Section 115B.04 has been previously discussed in this memorandum at the previous
pages of this section.
16
Second and last, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to be granted
litigation expenses for their hazardous substance removal costs damage in an amount that
is necessary and reasonable if the amount of their claim is necessary and reasonable.
Minn. Stat. S 115B.14; and Minn. R. Civ. P. 54.04. Based on Minnesota statutory law and
commonlaw, the necessity and reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ litigation expenses for
their hazardous substance removal costs are determined as follows: 1) their necessity is
based upon whether they were incurred for legal expenses or work that was required in
order to effectively and efficiently litigate their case; and 2) their reasonableness is based
upon whether they are claimed at an amount that is consistent with the usual and
customary costs of the type of work that was required to be performed. The prevailing
party in an action under Minnesota Statutes Section 115B.04 must make a motion for
the awarding of litigation expenses, stating in detail in an affidavit the basis for such. Minn. Stat. S 115B.14. The nonprevailing party is entitled to appeal the amount of such.
Minn. R. Civ. P. 54.04. Whether Plaintiffs will be the prevailing party in an action under
Minnesota Statutes Section 115B.04 has been previously discussed in this memorandum at
the previous pages of this section. The basis of these determinations likely will be Plaintiffs’
rationale for the basis for the amount of their litigation expenses claim, the circumstances
of the case, and testimony by such an expert.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to be granted
litigation expenses for their PFCs removal costs damage in an amount that is necessary and
reasonable because the amount of their claim likely will be necessary and reasonable
because the court likely will determine an amount that is based on the applicable rules of
law and then grant it. Such cannot be further analyzed without information on Plaintiffs’
claimed litigation expenses.
3. Equitable Relief For Interest
Third, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to be granted equitable relief
for interest (interest) for their hazardous substance removal costs damage if they prove
that these circumstances exist: 1) they are entitled to be granted a judgment for an award;
and 2) the amount of their claim is that which is determined statutorily. Minn. Stat.
SS 549.09(1)(a), (1)(b), & (1).
First, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to be granted interest for
their hazardous substance removal costs damage if they are entitled to be granted
a judgment for an award. Based on Minnesota statutory law, interest is awarded as
an equitable relief in a judgment for the recovery of money, including in an award. Minn. Stat.
S 549.09(1)(a). Whether Plaintiffs are able to prove that they are entitled to be granted
a judgment for an award has been discussed in this memo at the previous pages of this section.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to be granted
interest for their PFCs removal costs because they likely will be entitled to be granted a judgment
for an award. Whether Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to be granted
a judgment for an award has been previously discussed in this memo at the previous pages of
this section.
17
Second and last, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to be granted interest
for their hazardous substance removal costs damage if the amount of their claim is for that
which is determined statutorily. Minn. Stat. SS 549.09(1)(a), (1)(b), & (1). Based on
Minnesota statutory law, Plaintiffs are able to be granted prejudgment interest and
postjudgment interest for their hazardous substance removal costs damage. Minn. Stat.
S 549.09(1)(a) & (1)(b). First, Plaintiffs are granted prejudgment interest for such damage
on most compensatory damages because it must not be granted for the following types of
damages: 1) interest, litigation expenses, or other similar items that are added by the court;
2) punitive or other noncomp. damages; 3) future damages; and 4) judgment amounts that
are less than the maximum claim amount in conciliation court, which is $7,500. Minn. Stat.
S 549.09(1)(b). Last, Plaintiffs are granted postjudgment interest for such damage on
all damages. Minn. Stat. S 549.09(1)(a). The current legal rate for interest on judgments for
awards is 4%. Minn. Stat. S 549.09(1).
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to be granted
interest for their PFCs removal costs damage because the amount of their claim is for
that which is determined statutorily because the court likely will determine an amount that
is based upon the applicable rules of law and then grant it. First, Plaintiffs likely will be
granted prejudgment interest for their PFCs removal costs damage on comp. damages,
except those that are for future damages. Last, Plaintiffs likely will be granted
postjudgment interest for such damage on comp. damages and litigation expenses.
The applicable interest rate is 4%. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site (Minn. Pollution Control Ag.
Dec. 22, 2008) (decision); and Pl.’s 1st Compl. (Oct. 8, 2004).
4. Equitable and Injunctive Relief For An Order
Requiring 3M Corporation To Notice Plaintiffs And Pay Their Remedies
Fourth and last, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to be granted
equitable and injunctive relief for an order requiring Defendant to notice them and pay
their remedies (an order requiring Defendant to notice them and pay their remedies) for
their hazardous substance removal costs damage if granting such is an usual and
customary practice. Based on Minnesota commonlaw, the granting of an order requiring
Defendant to notice Plaintiffs and pay their remedies is an usual and customary practice.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to be granted
an order requiring 3M Corporation to notice them and pay their remedies for their PFCs removal
costs damage. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site (Minn. Pollution Control Ag. Dec. 22, 2008)
(decision); and Pl.’s 1st Compl. (Oct. 8, 2004).
Therefore, in the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove their claim for
PFCs removal costs damage that was caused by 3M Corporation’s release of PFCs from
its facility that resulted in 3M Corporation’s statutory strict liability to them for such, and,
consequently, they likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive several
remedies. First, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove their claim for PFCs removal costs
18
damage by proving that 3M Corporation is statutory strictly liable to them for such
because 3M Corporation is the person who is responsible for the release of PFCs from its
waste disposal sites for its Cottage Grove, Minnesota Plant, their claimed PFCs removal
costs likely will be determined to have resulted from such release, and their claimed PFCs
removal costs likely will be determined to be necessary and reasonable, but only if
Plaintiff’s water supply is deemed to be hazardous. Second, Plaintiffs likely will be able to
prove that they are entitled to receive compensatory damages and be granted litigation
expenses, interest, and an order requiring 3M Corporation to notice them and pay such for
their PFCs removal costs damage.
*****************************************************************************
III. Economic Loss Damage
The third issue is whether Plaintiffs will be able to prove their claim for economic loss
damage that was caused by their physical injury to their real property that resulted from
3M Corporation’s willful and wanton entry of PFCs into their water supplies, and, if so,
then what remedies they are entitled to receive or be granted.
In order to prove a claim for economic loss damage that was caused by their physical
injury to their real property that resulted from 3M Corporation’s willful and wanton entry
of PFCs into their water supplies, Plaintiffs must prove that 3M Corporation trespassed
with PFCs into their water supplies and such caused a physical injury to their real
property that resulted in economic loss damage, which can be accomplished by using
the commonlaw cause of action willful and wanton past trespass to real property as willful
and wanton entry of PFCs into their water supplies. Willful and wanton entry of
hazardous substance (PFCs) into Plaintiffs’ water supplies occurred if the following
circumstances existed: 1) Defendant (3M Corporation) owed to Plaintiffs a duty to not
cause hazardous substance (PFCs) to enter into their water supplies; 2) Defendant
breached such duty by creating circumstances in which there existed a forseeable risk that
is relatively high in probability or seriousness of willful and wanton causing hazardous
substance to enter into Plaintiffs’ water supplies, and the forseeable risk of the willful and
wanton entry of hazardous substance into Plaintiffs’ water supplies outweighed the burden
to Defendant of conducting its business so as to not so such; 3) Plaintiffs suffered
a physical injury to their real property for which there exists a remedy; and 4) Defendant’s
breach of such duty to Plaintiffs is the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ such injury. Edward J.
Kionka, Torts In A Nutshell, West Publishing, 1992, SS 4-1 – 4-7, & 6-6.
19
1. 3M Corporation Owed Plaintiffs A Duty
To Not Cause PFCs To Enter Into Their Water Supplies
First, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that Defendant is liable to them for their economic loss
damage if Defendant owed to them a duty to exercise reasonable care for the physical
safety of their real property by not causing hazardous substance to enter into their water
supplies without their permission or other authority (duty to not cause hazardous
substance to enter into their water supplies). Based on Minnesota commonlaw, Defendant
owed to Plaintiffs a duty to not cause hazardous substance to enter into their water supplies
when both parties are persons. Every person owes to every other person a duty to not cause
hazardous substance to enter into his water supply. Edward J. Kionka, Torts In A Nutshell, West
Publishing, 1992, SS 4-1 – 4-7 & 6-6.
In the current case, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that 3M Corporation owed to them a duty to
not cause PFCs to enter into their water supplies because both parties are persons.
2. 3M Corporation Breached Its Duty To Plaintiffs
To Not Cause PFCs To Enter Into Their Water Supplies
Second, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that Defendant is liable to them for their economic
loss damage if Defendant breached its duty to them to not cause hazardous substance to
enter into their water supplies. Edward J. Kionka, Torts In A Nutshell, West Publishing, 1992,
SS 4-1, 4-4, & 6-6. Based on Minnesota commonlaw, Defendant breached its duty to Plaintiffs
to not cause hazardous substance to enter into their water supplies when it did not act as
a reasonably prudent person who was in the same circumstances would have by willful and
wanton causing hazardous substance to enter into their water supplies. Defendant willfully and
wantonly caused hazardous substance to enter into Plaintiffs’ water supplies when
the following circumstances exist: 1) the forseeability of the risk of the willful and wanton
entry into Plaintiffs’ water supplies was relatively high in probability or seriousness; and
2) such outweighed the burden to Defendant of the alternate conduct that would have
prevented such entry.
First, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that Defendant breached its duty to them to not cause
hazardous substance to enter into their water supplies by willful and wanton causing
hazardous substance to enter into their water supplies if Defendant created circumstances
in which the forseeability of the risk of the willful and wanton entry into Plaintiffs’ water
supplies was relatively high in probability or seriousness. Minn. Stat. S 549.20(1)(b)(2);
Ba Lam v. County of Ramsey, No. A 08-0035, 2009 WL 173523, at *1 – 2 (Minn. App.
Jan. 27, 2009); and Edward J. Kionka, Torts In A Nutshell, West Publishing, 1992, SS 4-1, 4-4,
& 6-6. In Ba Lam, under private nuisance, Defendant was not liable for punitive damages to
business owner Plaintiff when it repaired his business’s real property’s drainage system in
a manner that was significantly inconsistent with their settlement agreement. Id. at 1 – 2. Based
on Minnesota statutory law and caselaw, such willful and wanton conduct has occurred when
Defendant had knowledge of the facts that created a high probability of injury to the rights
or safety of Plaintiffs, and deliberately proceeded to act with indifference to the high
probability of the injury to the rights or safety of Plaintiffs. Minn. Stat. S 549.20(1)(b)(2).
However, it does not occur when Defendant’s conduct is indicative of merely incompetence to
20
the high probability of the injury to Plaintiff’s rights or safety. Ba Lam, 2009 WL 173523, at *2.
One of the manners in which to prove that Defendant created circumstances in which
the forseeability of the risk of the willful and wanton entry of hazardous substance into
Plaintiffs’ water supplies was relatively high in probability or seriousness is when
Defendant had been in the same or similar circumstances with the same or another
hazardous substance, so, consequently, it knew, or should have known, that such act
created a high probability of causing the same or similar result. Kionka, supra.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that 3M Corporation created
circumstances in which the forseeability of the risk of the willful and wanton entry of PFCs
into their water supplies was relatively high in probability because 3M Corporation
had previously taken remedial actions at its waste disposal sites for the same circumstances
of contamination with VOCs. In 1963, 3M Corporation was advised by MPCA, first, that
its waste disposal sites for its Cottage Grove, Minnesota Plant could cause hazardous substance
contamination of the surrounding water supplies, and, second, in 1966, that such waste disposal
sites were causing such contamination with VOCs. 3M Corporation took prompt, effective
voluntary remedial actions. Those circumstances parallel the current circumstances, except that
the hazardous substances are PFCs. Although the technology to detect and measure PFCs likely
was not available until shortly before 2000, when 3M Corporation was advised of its VOCs
contamination, it knew that it had also disposed of PFCs at the same time and in the same
manner. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site, at 1 – 5 & 7 (Minn. Pollution Control Ag. Dec. 22, 2008)
(decision).
Second and last, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that Defendant breached its duty to them to
not cause hazardous substance to enter into their water supplies by willful and wanton
causing hazardous substance to enter into their water supplies if the forseeability of the
risk of the willful and wanton entry of hazardous substance into Plaintiffs’ water supplies
outweighed the burden to Defendant of conducting business so as to not cause such. Based
on Minnesota commonlaw, one of the manners in which Defendant created circumstances in
which the forseeability of the risk of the willful and wanton entry into Plaintiffs’ water
supplies outweighed the burden to Defendant of conducting business so as to not cause such
is when the forseeability of the risk of the willful and wanton entry of hazardous substance
into Plaintiffs’ water supplies was relatively high in probability and the burden to
Defendant of not causing such was insignificant. The paramount considerations for
determining the burden to Defendant of not causing such are as follows: 1) its feasibility;
2) its relative cost, in terms of money, time, and effort; and 3) its relative utility as a means
of achieving the same end. Edward J. Kionka, Torts In A Nutshell, West Publishing, 1992,
SS 4-1, 4-4, 4-7, & 6-6.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that 3M Corporation created
circumstances in which the forseeability of the risk of the willful and wanton entry of PFCs
into their water supplies outweighed the burden to it of conducting business so as to not
cause such because the forseeability of the risk of the willful and wanton entry of PFCs into
Plaintiffs’ water supplies was relatively high in probability and the burden to 3M
Corporation of not causing such was insignificant. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site, at 2 - 3
(Minn. Pollution Control Ag. Dec. 22, 2008) (decision); Minn. Stat. S 115B.04(1)(2); PFBA In
21
Groundwater of Southeast Metro. Area, Dec. 18, 2008, http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/
hazardous/topics/pfbasemetro.html; and Bob Shaw, Judge Further Narrows 3M Lawsuit, Pioneer
Press, B, 1 (Jan. 21, 2009), http://www.pioneerplanet.com. The burden to 3M Corporation of
not causing willful and wanton entry of PFCs into Plaintiffs’ water supplies was
insignificant for several reasons. First, the feasibility of 3M Corporation conducting
its business so as to not cause such likely would have been high. An alternate conduct that
3M Corporation could have taken is initially placing its wastes at its waste disposal sites in clay
and/or limestone pits. It likely had the knowledge and skills to utilize such before 1963, when it
promptly began to utilize them after being advised by FMWPCC that its waste disposal sites
could cause contamination of the surrounding water supplies. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site, at 2.
Second, the relative cost in money, time, and effort of 3M Corporation conducting its
business so as to not cause such likely would have been at least the same as it likely will be
for it as a consequence of its chosen conduct. As a consequence of its chosen conduct,
3M Corporation has taken several remedial actions that utilized a great deal of its money, time,
and effort, which have been previously discussed in this memorandum at pages 5 - 6.
3M Woodbury Disposal Site, at 2 - 3. Furthermore, as a result of the current case, it likely will
be court ordered to conduct removal efforts for a significant number of property owners who live
in PFCs – Contaminated Water Supplies Areas surrounding its waste disposal sites and pay
at least slightly significant amounts of money to Plaintiffs and their attorney. Minn. Stat.
S 115B.04(1)(2); 3M Woodbury Disposal Site; PFBA In Groundwater of Southeast Metro. Area,
supra; and Bob Shaw, supra. Lastly, the relative utility as a means of disposing of its waste
from its Cottage Grove, Minnesota Plant to 3M Corporation of conducting its business so
as to not cause such likely would have been greater than its chosen conduct likely will be. If
it had chosen the former, then it would not have been required to take remedial efforts.
3M Woodbury Disposal Site.
3. Plaintiffs Have Suffered An Actionable Physical Injury
To Their Real Properties With Economic Loss Damage
Third, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that Defendant is liable to them for their economic
loss damage if they have suffered a physical injury to their real property for which there
exists a remedy (an actionable physical injury to their real property). Edward J. Kionka,
Torts In A Nutshell, West Publishing, 1992, SS 4-7, 6-6, & 9-1; Lawin v. City of Long Prairie,
355 N.W.2d 764, 765 - 766 (Minn. App. 1984); Minn. Stat. S 273.11(17)(a); Sterling v. Velsicol
Chem. Corp., 855 F.2d 1188, 1192, 1204, 1212 - 1213, & 1215 - 1217 (6th Cir. 1988); Russell v.
Carroll, No. A 04-47, 2004 WL 2093555, at *2 - 3 (Minn. App. Sept. 21, 2004) (cert. denied
Dec. 22, 2004); 3M Woodbury Disposal Site (Minn. Pollution Control Ag. Dec. 22, 2008)
(decision); and PFBA In Groundwater of Southeast Metro. Area, Dec. 18, 2008,
http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/pfbasemetro.html. In Lawin, Defendant
was liable, under negligent entry into real property, for economic loss that resulted from
its sewer system backing-up into Plaintiff’s real property. Lawin, 355 N.W.2d at 765 & 766. In
Sterling, Defendant was held liable, under willful and wanton trespass of hazardous waste into
real property, to Plaintiff for causing hazardous waste to enter into his water supply from its
facility. Sterling, 855 F.2d at 1192. In Russell, Defandants were held liable, under fraud, for
economic loss damage that resulted from their acts of failing to disclose and fraudulently
claiming otherwise on a real property purchase agreement that there are no significant problems.
22
Russell, 2004 WL 2093555, at *2 & 3. Based on Minnesota commonlaw, caselaw, and statutory
law, one of the manners in which to prove that Plaintiffs have suffered an actionable
physical injury to their real property is when a remedy has been claimed as compensation
for and actionable economic loss as the lesser of the dimunition in the property value or
restoration costs damage (economic loss damage) that resulted from Defendant’s willful
and wanton entry of hazardous substance into their water supplies. Kionka, supra.
The dimunition in the property value is the difference between the real property’s original
property value and its contamination property value. Id.; and Lawin, 355 N.W.2d at 766.
Contamination property value is determined by the amount of the market value reduction
that results from the presence of the contaminants, but it must not exceed the cost of a
reasonable response action plan. Minn. Stat. S 273.11(17)(a). Generally, economic loss
damage is provable because hazardous substance contamination of real property makes it
more difficult to sell or obtain credit for a real property because persons are significantly
less likely to purchase and financial institutions are significantly less likely to finance
the purchase of it. Lawin, 355 N.W.2d at 766; and Sterling, 855 F.2d at 1212 - 1213.
Such economic loss damage is claimed as compensation for past and future monetary losses that
resulted from Defendant’s willful and wanton entry of hazardous substance into Plaintiffs’ water
supplies, Kionka, supra, including those that were caused by a stigma being placed on
the property. Russell, 2004 WL 2093555, at *3. However, it will be determined that
only Plaintiffs whose water supplies are deemed to be hazardous by MDH have suffered
an actionable physical injury to their real property with economic loss damage.
Our society expects to be protected from circumstances that are at least significantly
dangerous to our health since our government agencies that are responsible for such,
MPCA and MDH, possess responsibilities and powers which reflect such. 3M Woodbury
Disposal Site; and PFBA In Groundwater of Southeast Metro. Area, supra. It is reasonable and
good public policy that the same duty of care that is expected of government agencies be
applied to businesses. First, no significant government interest would be served by not
doing such since Americans do not expect to be protected from acts that are not
significantly likely to injure their health. Lastly, if businesses were held to the higher duty
of care, then they would have a significant burden placed on their finances, time, and
effort, and, as a result, they likely would be forced to either no longer conduct business or
charge higher prices for their products or services.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they have suffered
an actionable physical injury to their real property because they likely have claimed such
as compensation for past and future monetary losses that resulted from 3M Corporation
willful and wanton causing PFCs to enter into their water supplies. Pl.’s 1st Compl.; Bob
Shaw, Judge Further Narrows 3M Lawsuit, Pioneer Press, B, 1 (Jan. 21, 2009),
http:/www.pioneerplanet.com; Bob Shaw, 3M’s Suit’s Big Issue: Who Got Hurt?, Pioneer Press,
A, 1 (March 25, 2007), http://www.pioneerplanet.com; Jeff Ruch, Feb. 26, 2006, State Pays
Scientist $325,000 To Resign, http://www.peer.org/news/print_detail.php?row_id =640; PFBA In
Groundwater of Southeast Metro. Area, Dec. 18, 2008, http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/
hazardous/topics/pfbasemetro.html; and 3M Woodbury Disposal Site, at 2 (Minn. Pollution
Control Ag. Dec. 22, 2008) (decision). Such monetary losses likely will be proven, although
Plaintiffs have offered no proof of such, Pl.’s 1st Compl.; and Bob Shaw, Judge Further
Narrows 3M Lawsuit, supra, because it is highly probable that Plaintiffs’ real properties
23
have significantly diminished in value. First, PFCs contamination of the water supplies
surrounding 3M Corporation’s former waste disposal sites, which is well-known in places
that are nearby such areas and has at least been heard of throughout Minnesota, in
general, has caused at least concern in Cottage Grove, where I jointly own a real property,
and likely the other cities in PFCs – Contaminated Water Supplies Areas. Second,
although, 3M Corporation stopped such waste disposal practice in the area that is involved
in these circumstances in 1975, Bob Shaw, 3M’s Suit’s Big Issue: Who Got Hurt?, supra,
Plaintiffs and their water supplies will be contaminated for a relatively lengthy amount of
time when compared to the human lifespan. First, PFCs will continue to exist in Plaintiffs’
bodies for an estimated 69.36 years after consumption, Jeff Ruch, supra. Second and last,
PFCs will continue to exist in Plaintiffs’ water supplies for a significant amount of time,
which could be reliably and accurately determined by an expert on PFCs, because they will
exists there until they are depleted, PFBA In Groundwater of Southeast Metro. Area, supra,
which likely be a significant amount of time because they were caused to enter Plaintiffs’
water supplies for approximately 10 years. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site, at 2; and Bob Shaw,
Judge Further Narrows 3M Lawsuit, supra. However, it likely will be determined that only
Plaintiffs whose water supplies are deemed to be hazardous have suffered an actionable
physical injury to their real property with economic loss damage.
However, Plaintiffs likely will not be able to prove that 3M Corporation is liable to them
for either physical pain damage or emotional distress damage because they have not
suffered an actionable physical injury to themselves. Edward J. Kionka, Torts In A Nutshell,
West Publishing, 1992, SS 4-7, 6-6, & 9-1; Sterling v. Velsicol Chem. Corp., 855 F.2d 1188,
1204 (6th Cir. 1988); and Quill v. Trans World Airlines, 361 N.W.2d 438, 442 (Minn. App.
1985). In Quill, under negligent infliction of emotional distress, Defendant was held liable for
an emotional distress damage of passenger Plaintiff Abrahamson when he continued to suffer
anxiety regarding airplane flight as a result of his experience on Defendant’s airplane when it
nearly crashed, although he never suffered a physical injury and did not seek emotional health
treatment, because his emotional distress arose from a special circumstance that made it
highly probable that the emotional distress is genuine and severe, which is rarely determined.
Quill, 361 N.W.2d at 440 & 442. Based on Minnesota commonlaw, Plaintiffs have suffered
an actionable physical injury to themselves when a remedy has been claimed as
compensation for physical pain damage or emotional distress damage that resulted from
Defendant’s willful and wanton entry of hazardous substance into their water supplies. Kionka, supra.
First, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that Defendant is liable to them for physical pain
damage if they have suffered an actionable physical injury to themselves. Edward J. Kionka,
Torts In A Nutshell, West Publishing, 1992, SS 4-7, 6-6, & 9-1; and Sterling v. Velsicol Chem.
Corp., 855 F.2d 1188, 1204 (6th Cir. 1988). Based on Minnesota commonlaw and caselaw, one
of the manners in which to prove that Plaintiffs have suffered an actionable physical injury
to themselves is when a remedy has been claimed as compensation for an actionable
physical pain damage that resulted from Defendant’s willful and wanton entry of
hazardous substance into Plaintiffs’ water supplies. Kionka, supra. An actionable physical
pain damage exists when the following can be proven to a reasonable degree of medical
certainty: 1) Plaintiff is at-risk for a future disease or condition because of his exposure to
24
toxins that often cause a disease or condition; and 2) proof for such condition exists.
However, testimony that ingesting contaminated water could cause a physical injury to
a person does not satisfy the requisite level of proof. Sterling, 855 F.2d at 1204. If it were
provable, then such physical pain damage would be claimed as compensation for past and future
physical pain and suffering and monetary losses that resulted from Defendant’s willful and
wanton entry of hazardous substance into Plaintiffs’ water supplies. Kionka, supra.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will not be able to prove that they have suffered
an actionable physical injury to themselves because they have not claimed a remedy as
compensation for an actionable physical pain damage that resulted from 3M Corporation’s
willful and wanton entry of PFCs into their water supplies. Plaintiffs likely will not be able
to prove their claim of physical pain damage as possessing a significantly increased risk of
contracting a serious latent disease that results from a subcellular physical injury and
the financial expenses of the diagnosis, preventative and consequential treatment, and
monitoring of the physical injuries of such because they likely will not be able to prove that
they are at-risk for a future disease or condition because of their exposure to PFCs.
Plaintiffs likely will not be able to satisfy the requisite level of proof that PFCs often cause
a disease or condition to persons because their evidence consists of inconclusive and limited
scientific research that shows that PFCs could cause a subcellular physical injury to
persons that would take an undeterminable number of years to cause a physical injury that
is able to be verified to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Pl.’s 1st Compl. P 87 &
91 – 92; and Bob Shaw, 3M Asks Judge To Toss Lawsuit Related To Chemicals In Water,
Pioneer Press, B, 5 (Dec. 17, 2008), http://www.pioneerplanet.com.
Second and last, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that Defendant is liable to them for
emotional distress damage if they have suffered an actionable physical injury to
themselves. Edward J. Kionka, Torts In A Nutshell, West Publishing, 1992, SS 4-7, 6-6, & 9-1;
and Quill v. Trans World Airlines, 361 N.W.2d 438, 442 (Minn. App. 1985). Based on
Minnesota commonlaw and caselaw, another manner in which to prove that Plaintiffs have
suffered an actionable physical injury to themselves is when a remedy has been claimed as
compensation for an actionable emotional distress damage that resulted from Defendant’s
willful and wanton entry of hazardous substance into Plaintiffs’ water supplies. Kionka,
supra. An emotional distress damage that was accompanied by a consequential bodily
injury is actionable when Plaintiffs’ circumstances meet the criteria of “The Zone of
Danger Rule”: 1) Plaintiffs must have been in the physical danger to themselves that
resulted from Defendant’s willful and wanton entry of hazardous substance into their
water supply when the emotional distress occurred; and 2) the consequential bodily injury
must be severe. Quill, 361 N.W.2d at 442. If it were provable, then such emotional distress
damage would be claimed as compensation for past and future emotional pain and suffering and
monetary losses that resulted from Defendant’s willful and wanton entry of hazardous substance
into Plaintiffs’ water supplies. Kionka, supra.
25
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will not be able to prove that they have suffered
an actionable physical injury to themselves because they have not claimed a remedy as
compensation for an actionable emotional distress damage that resulted from
3M Corporation’s willful and wanton entry of PFCs into their water supplies. Plaintiffs
likely will not be able to prove the existence of an emotional distress damage because their
circumstances likely will not meet “The Zone of Danger Rule”. Plaintiffs in general or
Plaintiff Karen Paulson were not in the physical danger that resulted from
3M Corporation’s willful and wanton entry of PFCs into their water supplies when
their alleged emotional distress damage occurred because 3M Corporation’s such act
did not create a physical danger to them. 3M Corporation’s such act did not create
a physical danger to them because it did not cause an actionable physical injury to them.
Pl.’s 1st Compl. P 87 (Oct. 8, 2004); and Bob Shaw, Health Claims In 3M Suit Rejected, Pioneer
Press, A, 2 (Dec. 19, 2008), http://www.pioneerplanet.com. Whether 3M Corporation’s acts
in these circumstances caused an actionable physical injury to Plaintiffs has been discussed
in this memorandum at the previous page.
4. 3M Corporation’s Breach of Its Duty To Plaintiffs
To Not Cause PFCs To Enter Into Their Water Supplies
Is The Proximate Cause of
Their Physical Injury To Their Real property With Economic Loss Damage
Fourth and last, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that 3M Corporation is liable to them for
their economic loss damage if its breach of its duty to them to not cause PFCs to enter into
their water supplies is the proximate cause of their physical injury to their real property
with economic loss damage. Edward J. Kionka, Torts In A Nutshell, West Publishing, 1992,
SS 4-1, 4-4, 4-7, 5-2, & 6-6; Lawin v. City of Long Prairie, 355 N.W.2d 764, 766 (Minn. App.
1984); and Sterling v. Velsicol Chem. Corp., 855 F.2d 1188, 1212 - 1213 (6th Cir. 1988). Based
on Minnesota commonlaw and caselaw, in order to prove proximate cause, these conditions
must be satisfied: 1) Defendant’s willful and wanton entry of hazardous substance into
Plaintiffs’ water supplies must have caused a forseeable injury to Plaintiffs’ real property; Kionka, supra, at SS 4-1, 4-4, 4-7, & 6-6; Lawin, 355 N.W.2d at 766; and Sterling, 855 F.2d at
1212 - 1213; and 2) there must have been no significant intervening cause for such. Kionka,
supra, at SS 4-4 & 5-2.
First, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that Defendant’s willful and wanton entry of
hazardous substance into their water supplies caused a forseeable physical injury to
their real property with economic loss damage if their water supplies being contaminated
hazardous substance is highly likely to reduce their real property’ property values. Edward
J. Kionka, Torts In A Nutshell, West Publishing, 1992, SS 4-1, 4-4, 4-7, & 6-6; Lawin v. City of
Long Prairie, 355 N.W.2d 764, 766 (Minn. App. 1984); and Sterling v. Velsicol Chem. Corp.,
855 F.2d 1188, 1212 - 1213 (6th Cir. 1988). Based on Minnesota commonlaw and caselaw,
Defendant’s breach of its duty to Plaintiffs to not cause hazardous substance to enter into
their water supplies is the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ physical injury to their real
property with economic loss damage when Defendant’s such act caused a forseeable
physical injury to Plaintiffs’ real property with economic loss as the lesser of
26
the dimunition in their properties’ property values or restoration costs damage. Kionka,
supra; and Lawin, 355 N.W.2d at 766. The physical injury to Plaintiffs’ real property as
contamination by hazardous substance that was caused by Defendant’s willful and wanton
entry of hazardous substance into their real property will be determined to be a forseeable
injury because, in general, persons are significantly less likely to purchase and financial
institutions are significantly less willing to finance the purchase of such property. Sterling,
855 F.2d at 1212 - 1213. However, it will be determined that Plaintiffs’ physical injury to
their real property with economic loss damage was a forseeable consequence of
Defendant’s such act only if their water supplies are deemed to be hazardous by MDH.
The rules of law regarding such have been discussed in this memorandum at page 21.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that 3M Corporation’s willful and
wanton entry of PFCs into their water supplies caused a forseeable physical injury to their
real property with economic loss as the lesser of dimunition in their real property’ property
values or restoration costs damage because their water supplies being contaminated with
PFCs is highly likely to reduce their real property’ property values. First, 3M Corporation
admittedly committed a willful and wanton entry of PFCs into Plaintiffs water supplies by
causing PFCs from its waste disposal sites to enter into them without permission or other
authority to do so. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site, at 2 (Minn. Pollution Control Ag. Dec. 22, 2008)
(decision); and Bob Shaw, Judge Further Narrows 3M Lawsuit, Pioneer Press, B, 1 (Jan. 21,
2009), http://www.pioneerplanet.com. Last, 3M Corporation has not offered proof that the Twin
Cities, Minn. real estate market and financial institutions significantly differ on this point from
those in the country in general. Bob Shaw, supra. However, it likely will be determined that
Plaintiffs’ physical injury to their real property with economic loss damage was
a forseeable consequence of 3M Corporation’s willful and wanton entry of PFCs into
their water supply only if their water supplies are deemed to be hazardous.
Second and last, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that Defendant’s breach of its duty to them
to not cause hazardous substance to enter into their water supplies is the proximate cause
of their physical injury to their real property with economic loss damage if there was no
intervening cause for such. Based on Minnesota commonlaw, an intervening cause could
possibly be proven when there existed any circumstance that constitutes either a mitigating factor
for or a defense to Defendant’s liability for Plaintiffs’ physical injury to their real property
Edward J. Kionka, Torts In A Nutshell, West Publishing, 1992, SS 4-4 & 5-2.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that there was no intervening
cause for their physical injury to their real property with economic loss damage because no
proof of such exists. First, 3M Corporation has never claimed that there was
an intervening cause. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site, at 1 – 5 & 7 (Minn. Pollution Control Ag.
Dec. 22, 2008) (decision); and Bob Shaw, Judge Further Narrows 3M Lawsuit, Pioneer Press, B,
1 (Jan. 21, 2009), http://www.pioneerplanet.com. Lastly, the information that would be required
for Plaintiffs to have been able to make knowledgeable decisions regarding these circumstances
is highly scientific and not easily available, so it likely will be determined to be highly
improbable that they were privy to such. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site; and PFBA In
Groundwater of Southeast Metro. Area, Dec. 18, 2008, http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/
hazardous/topics/pfbasemetro.html.
27
As a result of Plaintiffs likely being able to prove that 3M Corporation is liable to them for
their economic loss damage, Plaintiffs likely will be entitled to receive or be granted several
remedies, if they prove the specific criteria of each remedy.
1. Compensatory Damages
First, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive compensatory
damages for their economic loss damage from their physical injury to their real property if
the following circumstances exist: 1) Defendant is liable to them for their economic loss
damage; Edward J. Kionka, Torts In A Nutshell, West Publishing, 1992, S 9-1; and
2) the amount is based on such. Lawin v. City of Long Prairie, 355 N.W.2d 764, 766
(Minn. App. 1984).
First, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive comp. damages for
their economic loss damage if Defendant is liable to them for their economic loss damage.
Based on Minnesota commonlaw, Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs for their economic loss
damage when Plaintiffs have incurred an actionable economic loss damage that resulted
from Defendant’s willful and wanton entry of hazardous substance into their water
supplies. Plaintiffs have incurred such an actionable economic loss damage when past and
future monetary losses were incurred by Plaintiffs as a result of Defendant’s willful and
wanton entry of hazardous substance into their water supplies. Such monetary losses will
be proven to have been incurred by Plaintiffs under such circumstances when the physical
injury to Plaintiffs’ real property that caused them are proven. Edward J. Kionka, Torts In
A Nutshell, West Publishing, 1992, S 9-1. Plaintiffs’ ability to prove such physical injury
has been discussed in this memorandum at pages 20 – 22. However, it likely will be
determined that only Plaintiffs whose water supplies are deemed to be hazardous by MDH
have suffered an actionable physical injury to their real property with economic loss
damage. The rules of law regarding such have been discussed in this memorandum at
page 21.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive
comp. damages for their economic loss damage because they likely have incurred
a provable economic loss damage that resulted from 3M Corporation’s willful and wanton
entry of PFCs into their water supplies. Plaintiffs claim that they have incurred such past
and future monetary losses as the lesser of the dimunition in the value of their real
properties or restoration costs. Pl.’s 1st Compl. P 87 & 98 (Oct. 8, 2004). The physical injury
to their real property likely will be proven. The application of the rules of law regarding
Plaintiffs’ ability to prove such physical injury to these circumstances has been discussed in
this memorandum at pages 20 - 22. However, it likely will be determined that
only Plaintiffs whose water supplies are deemed to be hazardous by MDH have suffered
an actionable physical injury to their real property with economic loss damage.
28
Second and last, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive
compensatory damages for their economic loss damage if the amount is based on such. Edward J. Kionka, Torts In A Nutshell, West Publishing, 1992, S 9-1; and Lawin v. City of Long
Prairie, 355 N.W.2d 764, 766 (Minn. App. 1984). The rules of law regarding the amount of
economic loss damage has been discussed in this memorandum at pages 20 - 22.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be entitled to receive compensatory damages for
their economic loss damage because they likely will claim an amount that is based on such.
The application of the rules of law regarding the amount of such economic loss damage to
these circumstances has been discussed in this memorandum at pages 20 – 22. Plaintiffs
likely will claim an amount that is based on their economic loss damage because they
likely have been able to make informed, rational decisions regarding such because they
likely have received adequate assistance from MDH, MPCA, and other PFCs removal
experts since these circumstances have been in litigation since 2004. 3M Woodbury Disposal
Site (Minn. Pollution Control Ag. Dec. 22, 2008) (decision); and PFBA In Groundwater of
Southeast Metro. Area, Dec. 18, 2008, http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/
pfbasemetro.html; and Pl.’s 1st Compl, (Oct. 8, 2004).
2. Punitive Damages
Second, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive punitive damages
for their economic loss damage from their physical injury to their real property if
their circumstances satisfy the following criteria: 1) Defendant is held liable, under a tort
that involves at least willful and wanton misconduct, to them for their physical injury to
their real property with economic loss damage; Minn. Stat. S 549.20(1)(b)(2); Ba Lam v.
County of Ramsey, No. A 08-0035, 2009 WL 173523, at *1 - 2 (Minn. App. Jan. 27, 2009);
Terfehr v. Kleinfehn, 352 N.W.2d 470, 471 & 474 (Minn. App. 1984) (certiorari denied); and
Sterling v. Velsicol Chem. Corp., 855 F.2d 1188, 1215 - 17 (6th Cir. 1988); 2) awarding
punitive damages under such circumstances is allowed by U. S. Constitution’s Due Process
Clause’s fundamental fairness requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 549.20 and
U. S. caselaw; Minn. Stat. S 549.20(3); U.S. Const. amend. XIV, S 1; and Sterling, 855 F.2d at
1215 - 1217; and 3) the amount of punitive damages is allowed by U. S. Constitution’s
Due Process Clause’s fundamental fairness requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section
549.20, Minnesota and U. S. caselaw, and the court’s discretion. Minn. Stat. S 549.20(3);
Brantner Farms, Inc. v. Garner, No. C6-01-1572, 2002 WL 1163559, at *6 – 7 (Minn. App.
June 4, 2002); and State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 123 S. Ct. 1513,
1519 - 1520 (2003). In Terfehr, Defendant, under negligent past trespass to real property as
negligent entry onto property, was not held liable for punitive damages when he obstructed a
common ditch in violation of a court order, which caused Plaintiff’s agricultural real property to
flood, causing physical injury to his crops. Terfehr, 352 N.W.2d at 471. In Brantner Farms, Inc.,
Defendant was held liable, under intentional trespass to real property, for punitive damages of
$50,000 when nominal compensatory damages was $819. Brantner Farms, Inc., 2002 WL
1163559, at *6 – 7. In State Farm Mutual Auto Insur. Co., Defendant was held liable, under
fraud, to insureds Plaintiffs for failure to settle in good faith, but not for punitive damages of
$145 million when compensatory damages were $1 million because the ratio of punitive
29
damages to compensatory damages is greater than nine to one. State Farm Mutual Auto Insur.
Co., 123 S. Ct. at 1519 – 1520.
First, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive punitive damages for
their economic loss damage if the following circumstances exist: 1) Defendant is held liable,
under a tort that involves at least willful and wanton misconduct, to them for their physical
injury to their real property with economic loss damage; Minn. Stat. S 549.20(1)(b)(2);
Ba Lam v. County of Ramsey, No. A 08-0035, 2009 WL 173523, at *2 (Minn. App. Jan. 27,
2009); Terfehr v. Kleinfehn, 352 N.W.2d 470, 474 (Minn. App. 1984) (certiorari denied); and
Sterling v. Velsicol Chem. Corp., 855 F.2d 1188, 1215 - 1217 (6th Cir. 1988); and 2) awarding
punitive damages under such circumstances is allowed by U. S. Constitution’s Due Process
Clause’s fundamental fairness requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 549.20 and
U. S. caselaw. Minn. Stat. S 549.20(3); U.S. Const. amend. XIV, S 1; and Sterling, 855 F.2d at
1215 - 1217.
First, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive punitive damages for
their economic loss damage if Defendant is held liable, under a tort that involves at least
willful and wanton conduct, to them for their physical injury to their real property with
economic loss damage. Minn. Stat. S 549.20(1)(b)(2); Ba Lam v. County of Ramsey,
No. A 08-0035, 2009 WL 173523, at *2 (Minn. App. Jan. 27, 2009); Terfehr v. Kleinfehn, 352
N.W.2d 470, 474 (Minn. App. 1984) (certiorari denied); and Sterling v. Velsicol Chem. Corp.,
855 F.2d 1188, 1215 - 1217 (6th Cir. 1988). The ability of Plaintiffs to prove such has been
discussed in this memorandum at pages 18 - 21. However, it will be determined that only
Plaintiffs whose water supplies are deemed to be hazardous by MDH have suffered
an actionable physical injury to their real property with economic loss damage. The rules
of law regarding such have been discussed in this memorandum at page 21.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive
punitive damages for their economic loss damage because 3M Corporation likely will be
held liable, under willful and wanton entry of PFCs into their water supplies, to them for
their physical injury to their real property with economic loss damage. The ability of
Plaintiffs to prove such has been discussed in this memorandum at pages 18 – 21.
However, it likely will be determined that only Plaintiffs whose water supplies are deemed
to be hazardous by MDH have suffered an actionable physical injury to their real property
with economic loss damage.
Second, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive punitive damages
for their economic loss damage if awarding them is allowed by U. S. Constitution’s Due
Process Clause’s fundamental fairness requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 549.20
and U. S. caselaw. Minn. Stat. S 549.20(3); U.S. Const. amend. XIV, S 1; and Sterling v.
Velsicol Chem. Corp., 855 F.2d 1188, 1215 – 1217 (6th Cir. 1988).
First, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive punitive damages for
their economic loss damage if awarding them is allowed by U. S. Constitution’s Due
Process Clause’s fundamental fairness requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 549.20. Minn. Stat. S 549.20(3); and U.S. Const. amend. XIV, S 1. Based on Minnesota statutory law,
30
one of the manners in which awarding punitive damages for economic loss damage is
allowed by U. S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause’s fundamental fairness requirements of
Minnesota Statutes Section 549.20 is when the significant burden to Defendant that
the awarding of punitive damages would create when the total effect of the other
consequences of its misconduct is taken into consideration is outweighed by
the significant seriousness and extreme length of its misconduct, its greatly superior
knowledge of the facts of its misconduct, and its possible delay in advisement of
its misconduct. Minnesota Statutes Section 549.20 codified U. S. Constitution’s
Due Process Clause’s and commonlaw fundamental fairness requirements. Minn. Stat.
S 549.20(3). U. S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause’s fundamental fairness rule protects
persons from the government depriving them of life or liberty without the due process of
law. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, S 1. Minnesota Statutes Section 549.20 contains the following
U. S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause’s fundamental fairness requirements that must be
considered when determining whether to award punitive damages for economic loss
damage: 1) the seriousness of the hazard that Defendant’s act caused; 2) the profitability of
the misconduct; 3) the duration of the misconduct and whether an attempt was made to
conceal it; 4) the level of Defendant’s awareness of the hazard and its excessiveness;
5) Defendant’s conduct and attitude upon the discovery of the misconduct; 6) the number
and level of the employees who were involved in causing and/or concealing the misconduct;
7) Defendant’s financial condition; and 8) the total effect of other consequences that are
likely to be imposed as a result of the misconduct, including a) compensatory and punitive
damages awards to Plaintiff and other similarly-situated persons; and b) the severity of
the criminal penalty to which Defendant could be subjected. Minn. Stat. S 549.20(3).
However, it will be determined that only Plaintiffs whose water supplies are deemed to be
hazardous by MDH have suffered an actionable physical injury to their real property with
economic loss damage. The rules of law regarding such have been discussed in
this memorandum at page 21.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive
punitive damages for their economic loss damage because awarding them likely will be
allowed by U. S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause’s fundamental fairness requirements of
Minnesota Statutes Section 549.20 because the significant burden to 3M Corporation that
awarding punitive damages would create when the total effect of the other consequences of
its misconduct is taken into consideration likely will be outweighed by the significant
seriousness and extreme length of its misconduct, its greatly superior knowledge of
the facts of its misconduct, and its possible delay in advisement of its misconduct. 3M
Woodbury Disposal Site, at 2, 4, 5, & 7 (Minn. Pollution Control Ag. Dec. 22, 2008) (decision);
Paul Walsh and Tom Meerman, Health Department Will Measure PFCs Levels In Adults Near
3M Plant, Landfills, Star Tribune, 1 (July 9, 2008), http://www.startribune.com; and Minn. Jud.
Branch, Pub. Access To Case Rec. Of Minn. Jud. Branch, http://www.pa.courts.state.mn.us/
CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=576297025. First, the seriousness of the hazard that
3M Corporation’s act caused likely will be determined to be significant since it is likely that
Plaintiffs will suffer significant monetary losses as the dimunition in the value of their real
property or restoration costs as a result of its willful and wanton entry into their water
supplies. Second, the profitability of the misconduct likely will not be determined to be
significant since 3M Corporation likely will have to utilize a significant amount of
31
its money, time, and effort “on the back end” in order to take the remedial actions that it
has already taken and likely will be ordered to take as a result of this case. Third, the
duration of 3M Corporation’s misconduct is over 60 years, although it had definite
knowledge of the misconduct for approximately the past 40 years. Fourth, it likely will be
determined that there were no attempts made to conceal the misconduct. However, it could
be determined that 3M Corporation attempted to delay advisement of MPCA of
the misconduct. In 2000, it advised MPCA of its misconduct. However, it did not take
remedial action until it was mandated to do so 7 years later. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site, at 2
& 7. Such delayed response likely could be interpreted to imply an inability or
unwillingness to take action on the situation, which could be interpreted to have caused
3M Corporation to not advise of such promptly after it was discovered. Fifth,
3M Corporation likely will be determined to have been significantly aware and more aware
than all other persons of the hazard that it had created. It was the person who had the
technology to detect and measure PFCs, which had not existed until shortly before it
advised MPCA and was not widely available. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site, at 2. Sixth,
the conduct and attitude of 3M Corporation upon the discovery of the misconduct likely
will be determined to be on par with an average U. S. international business. It has
significantly cooperated with or conducted all required investigations. However, it did not
take remedial action at its waste disposal sites or elsewhere for 7 years and until it
was mandated, 3M Woodbury Disposal Site, at 2, 4, 5, & 7. Furthermore, although it
financed a filtering system for two Oakdale wells and hook-ups to municipal water supplies
for over 200 Lake Elmo real property with PFCs contamination at levels deemed to be
hazardous, Paul Walsh and Tom Meerman, supra., it has paid the removal costs of only a few
of the persons who have a PFCs - contaminated water supply, which has required MPCA
to provide an alternate source of water to most such residents. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site,
at 4. Seventh, the financial condition of 3M Corporation is similar to that of an average
U. S. international business since it is downsizing and reorganizing due to the lower
demand for its products. Lastly, the total effect of other consequences that are likely to be
imposed on 3M Corporation as a result of the misconduct has been and is likely to be
significant regarding civil liability. First, 3M Corporation likely will be liable to Plaintiffs
for compensatory damages and equitable relief for litigation expenses and interest for
PFCs removal costs, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and interest for economic
loss damage, and compensatory damages, punitive damages, and interest for intentional
failure to remove PFCs from real property. Second, it likely will be liable to Lake Elmo
Land Development, L.L.C. et al., as well as an undeterminable number of additional
parties, under nearly identical circumstances for the same or similar remedies. Minn. Jud.
Branch, supra. Third and last, in 2007, 3M Corporation began its MPCA-mandated
remedial actions for its waste disposal sites. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site, at 5 & 7. However,
it likely will be determined that only Plaintiffs whose water supplies are deemed to be
hazardous have suffered an actionable physical injury to their real property with economic
loss damage.
Second and last, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive punitive
damages for their economic loss damage if awarding them is allowed by
U. S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause’s fundamental fairness requirements of U. S.
caselaw. Based on U. S. caselaw, circumstances that must be analyzed when determining
32
whether awarding punitive damages for economic loss damage violates U. S. Constitution’s
Due Process Clause’s fundamental fairness requirements of caselaw are as follows, with the
first being paramount: 1) Defendant had superior knowledge of the facts of circumstances,
particularly regarding a) the risk of injury of the hazardous substance and b) its waste
disposal practice; and 2) Defendant, when advised by the responsible governing agency
that its waste disposal practice had created circumstances in which the forseeability of
the willful and wanton entry of hazardous substance into Plaintiffs’ water supplies was
high, did not immediately stop such conduct. Sterling v. Velsicol Chem. Corp., 855 F.2d 1188,
1215 – 1217 (6th Cir. 1988). However, it will be determined that only Plaintiffs whose water
supplies are deemed to be hazardous by MDH have suffered an actionable physical injury
to their real property with economic loss damage. The rules of law regarding such
have been discussed in this memorandum at page 21.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive
punitive damages for their economic loss damage because awarding them likely will be
allowed by U. S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause’s fundamental fairness requirements of
U. S. caselaw because 3M Corporation had superior knowledge of the facts of
circumstances that caused its willful and wanton entry of PFCs into their water supplies.
First and paramount, 3M Corporation had superior knowledge of the facts of
circumstances, particularly regarding the risk of injury of PFCs and its waste disposal
practice. First, it was the only person who had access to the technology to detect and
measure PFCs. Second, it was the person who had greatly superior access to knowledge
regarding its waste disposal practice. Third and last, 3M Corporation, when advised by
MPCA and MDH that its waste disposal practice had created circumstances in which
the forseeability of the willful and wanton entry of PFCs into Plaintiffs’ water supplies was
high, it immediately stopped such conduct. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site, at 2 (Minn. Pollution
Control Ag. Dec. 22, 2008) (decision). However, it likely will be determined that only
Plaintiffs whose water supplies are deemed to be hazardous have suffered an actionable
physical injury to their real property with economic loss damage.
Second, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive punitive damages
for economic loss damage if the amount of their claim is allowed by the following rules of
law: 1) U. S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause’s fundamental fairness requirements of
Minnesota Statutes Section 549.20; Minn. Stat. S 549.20(3); 2) U. S. Constitutions’s Due
Process Clause’s fundamental fairness requirements of Minnesota and U. S. caselaw; Brantner Farms, Inc. v. Garner, No. C6-01-1572, 2002 WL 1163559, at *6 – 7 (Minn. App.
June 4, 2002); and State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 123 S. Ct. 1513,
1519 - 1520 (2003); and 3) the court’s discretion.
First, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive punitive damages for
their economic loss damage if the amount of their claim is allowed by U. S. Constitution’s
Due Process Clause’s fundamental fairness requirements of Minnesota Statute Section
549.20. Minn. Stat. S 549.20(3). The statutory requirements that must be considered when
determining whether an amount of punitive damages for economic loss damage is allowable
are the same as those for determining whether to award punitive damages for economic
33
loss damage. The rules of law regarding whether to award punitive damages for economic
loss damage have been discussed in this memorandum at pages 28 - 30.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive
punitive damages for their economic loss damage because the amount of their claim
likely will be allowed by U. S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause’s fundamental fairness
requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 549.20. The application of the rules of law
regarding whether to award punitive damages for economic loss damage to
these circumstances has been discussed in this memorandum at pages 28 - 30.
Second, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive punitive damages
for their economic loss damage if the amount of their claim is allowed by U. S.
Constitution’s Due Process Clause’s fundamental fairness requirements of Minnesota and
U. S. caselaw. Brantner Farms, Inc. v. Garner, No. C6-01-1572, 2002 WL 1163559, at *6 – 7
(Minn. App. June 4, 2002); and State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 123
S. Ct. 1513, 1519 - 1520 (2003). Based on Minnesota and U. S. caselaw, generally,
U. S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause’s principle of fundamental fairness’s
proportionality rule requires that the amount of the punitive damages be consistent with
the following circumstances: 1) it is up to nine times greater than the amount of
compensatory damages; and 2) it is not excessive when compared to the criminal penalty
for similar misconduct. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., 123 S. Ct. at 1519 – 1520.
However, such rule does not apply to trespass to real property cases because requiring such
would negate the purpose of deterrence since the significantly lesser amount of the punitive
damages award would not significantly deter such future misconduct. Consequently, an
award of compensatory damages in a nominal amount and punitive damages in an amount
that is over fifty times greater satisfies U. S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause’s principle
of fundamental fairness. Brantner Farms, Inc., 2002 WL 1163559, at *6 - 7.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive
punitive damages for their economic loss damage because the amount of their claim likely
will be allowed by U. S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause’s fundamental fairness
requirements of Minnesota and U. S. caselaw. In order to deter 3M Corporation and
other similarly – situated persons from causing willful and wanton entry of hazardous
substance into real property of a person in the future, the amount of punitive damages
likely will be significantly greater than the nominal amount of compensatory damages. 3M
Woodbury Disposal Site (Minn. Pollution Control Ag. Dec. 22, 2008) (decision).
Third and last, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive punitive
damages for their economic loss damage if the amount of their claim is allowed by the
court’s discretion. Based on Minnesota commonlaw, the amount of their claim punitive
damages for economic loss damage being at the court’s discretion is an usual and
customary practice.
34
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive punitive
damages for their economic loss damage because the amount of their claim is allowed by
the court’s discretion because the court likely will determine an amount that is based on
the applicable rules of law and then grant it. The court’s discretion likely will at least slightly
diminish the amount of punitive damages for economic loss damage. Honorable Minnesota
Tenth Judicial District Judge Mary Hannon has been making decisions during pretrial hearings
that seem to be based completely on “the letter” of the rules of law. As a result, if the jury
awards punitive damages for economic loss damage in an amount that she deems to be excessive
under the rules of law, then she likely will exercise her discretion in order to amend the amount.
3. Equitable Relief For Interest
Third, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to be granted interest for
their economic loss damage from their physical injury to their real property if the following
circumstances exist: 1) they are entitled to be granted a judgment for an award; and
2) the amount of their claim is that which is determined statutorily. Minn. Stat.
SS 549.09(1)(a), (1)(b), & (1).
First, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to be granted interest for
their economic loss damage if they are entitled to a judgment for an award. Minn. Stat.
S 549.09(1)(a). Plaintiffs’ ability to prove that they are entitled to a judgment for an award
has been discussed in this memo at the previous pages of this section.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to be granted
interest for their economic loss damage because they likely will be entitled to a judgment for
an award. Plaintiffs’ likely ability to prove that they are entitled to a judgment for an award
has been discussed in this memo at the previous pages of this section.
Second and last, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to be granted interest
for their economic loss damage if the amount of their claim is that which is determined
statutorily. Minn. Stat. SS 549.09(1)(a), (1)(b), & (1). The rules of law regarding the amount
of interest have been discussed in this memorandum at page 16.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to be granted
interest for their economic loss damage because the amount of their claim is that which
is determined statutorily. First, Plaintiffs likely will be entitled to be granted prejudgment
interest for their economic loss damage on comp. damages, except those that are for future
damages. Last, Plaintiffs likely will be entitled to be granted postjudgment interest for
such damage on comp. damages and punitive damages. The applicable interest rate is 4%. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site (Minn. Pollution Control Ag. Dec. 22, 2008) (decision).
35
4. Equitable and Injunctive Relief For
An Order Requiring 3M Corporation To Notice Plaintiffs and Pay Their Remedies
Fourth and last, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to be granted an order
requiring Defendant to notice them and pay their remedies for their economic loss damage
from their physical injury to their real property if granting such is an usual and customary
practice. Based on Minnesota commonlaw, the granting of an order requiring Defendant to
notice Plaintiffs and pay their remedies is an usual and customary practice. In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to be granted
an order requiring 3M Corporation to notice them and pay their remedies for their economic loss
damage from their physical injury to their real property 3M Woodbury Disposal Site
(Minn. Pollution Control Ag. Dec. 22, 2008) (decision); and Bob Shaw, Judge Further Narrows
3M Lawsuit, Pioneer Press, B, 1 (Jan. 21, 2009), http://www.pioneerplanet.com.
Therefore, in the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove their claim for
economic loss damage that was caused by their physical injury to their real property that
resulted from 3M Corporation’s willful and wanton entry of PFCs into their water
supplies, and, as a consequence, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled
to receive several remedies. Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove their claim for economic
loss damage by proving that that 3M Corporation is liable, under willful and wanton entry
of PFCs into their water supplies, to them for their economic loss damage because they
likely will be able to prove the following: 1) 3M Corporation owed to them a duty to
not cause entry of PFCs into their water supplies; 2) 3M Corporation breached such duty;
3) some of them, those who possess water supplies that are deemed to be hazardous by
MDH, have suffered from an actionable physical injury to their real property with
economic loss damage as the lesser of the dimunition in their real properties’ property
values or restoration costs; and 4) 3M Corporation’s breach of such duty is the proximate
cause of their such injury. Consequently, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they
are entitled to receive compensatory damages and punitive damages and be granted
interest and equitable and injunctive relief for an order requiring 3M Corporation to
notice them and pay such for their economic loss damage.
36
IV. Intentional Failure To Remove PFCs From Plaintiffs’ Water Supplies Damage
The fourth issue is whether Plaintiffs will be able to prove their claim for intentional failure
to remove PFCs from their water supplies damage that was caused by 3M Corporation’s
failure to take such act, and, if so, then what remedies they are entitled to receive and be
granted.
In order to prove their claim for intentional failure to remove PFCs from their water
supplies damage that was caused by 3M Corporation’s failure to take such act, Plaintiffs
must prove that 3M Corporation intentionally failed to remove PFCs from their water
supplies, which can be accomplished by utilizing the commonlaw cause of action intentional
continuing trespass to real property as intentional failure to remove PFCs from their water
supplies. The elements of intentional failure to remove hazardous substance (PFCs) from
Plaintiffs’ water supplies are as follows: 1) Defendant (3M Corporation) owed to Plaintiffs
a duty to remove hazardous substance from their water supplies; and 2) Defendant
breached such duty. Edward J. Kionka, Torts In A Nutshell, West Publishing, 1992, SS 3-4 &
6-6.
1. 3M Corporation Owed To Plaintiffs A Duty To Remove PFCs From Their Water
Supplies
First, Plaintiffs will be able to prove their intentional failure to remove hazardous
substance from their water supplies damage if Defendant owed to them a duty to exercise
reasonable care for the safety of their real properties by removing hazardous substance
from their water supplies (a duty to remove hazardous substance from their water
supplies). Edward J. Kionka, Torts In A Nutshell, West Publishing, 1992, SS 3-4 & 6-6; and
Minn. Stat. S 115.04B(1)(2). Based on Minnesota commonlaw and statutory law, one of
the manners in which Defendant owed to Plaintiffs a duty to remove hazardous substance
from their real property is when it is statutorily strictly liable for their hazardous
substance removal costs. Kionka, supra. The rules of law regarding statutory strict liability
for hazardous substance removal costs have been discussed in this memorandum at
pages 8 – 13.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that 3M Corporation owed to them a
duty to remove PFCs from their water supplies because 3M Corporation is statutorily strictly
liable to them for their PFCs removal costs. The application of the rules of law regarding
statutory strict liability for PFCs removal costs to these circumstances has been discussed in
this memorandum at pages 8 – 13.
37
2. 3M Corporation Breached Its Duty To Plaintiffs
To Remove PFCs From Their Water Supplies
Second and last, Plaintiffs will be able to prove their intentional failure to remove
hazardous substance from their water supplies damage if Defendant breached its duty to
Plaintiffs to remove hazardous substance from their water supplies. Based on Minnesota
commonlaw, Defendant breached its duty to Plaintiffs to remove hazardous substance from
their water supplies when it failed to take such action. Edward J. Kionka, Torts In A Nutshell,
West Publishing, 1992, SS 3-4 & 6-6.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that 3M Corporation breached its
duty to them to remove PFCs from their water supplies because 3M Corporation has
admitted that it has failed to take such action. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site (Minn. Pollution
Control Ag. Dec. 22, 2008) (decision); and Bob Shaw, Judge Further Narrows 3M Lawsuit,
Pioneer Press, B, 1 (Jan. 21, 2009), http://www.pioneerplanet.com.
As a result of Plaintiffs likely being able to prove that 3M Corporation is liable to them for
their intentional failure to remove PFCs from their water supplies damage, Plaintiffs likely
will be entitled to receive or be granted several remedies for such, if they prove the specific
criteria of each remedy.
1. Compensatory Damages
Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive comp. damages in a nominal
amount for their intentional failure to remove hazardous substance from their water
supplies damage if these circumstances exist: 1) Defendant is held statutory strictly liable to
Plaintiffs for their hazardous substance removal costs; 2) Defendant is held liable, under
a tort that involves trespass to real property, to Plaintiffs for its intentional failure to
remove hazardous substance from their water supplies; and 3) Plaintiffs cannot prove an
actual damage. Edward J. Kionka, Torts In A Nutshell, West Publishing, 1992, SS 3-4, 6-6, &
9-1; Minn. Stat. S 115B.04(1)(2); and Lake Mille Lacs Inv., Inc. v. Payne, 401 N.W.2d 387,
388 – 389 & 391 (Minn. App. 1987) (certiorari denied 1987). In this Minnesota case, Defandants
were not held liable, under intentional continuing trespass to real property, for making changes to
Plaintiff’s dock when they were determined to have riparian rights. Id. at 388 – 389.
First, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive comp. damages in
a nominal amount for their intentional failure to remove hazardous substance from
their water supplies damage if Defendant is held statutory strictly liable to Plaintiffs for
their hazardous substance removal costs. Edward J. Kionka, Torts In A Nutshell, West
Publishing, 1992, SS 3-4, 6-6, & 9-1; and Minn. Stat. S 115B.04(1)(2). The rules of law
regarding statutory strict liability for hazardous substance removal costs have been
discussed in this memorandum at pages 8 – 13.
38
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive
compensatory damages for their intentional failure to remove PFCs from their water
supplies damage because 3M Corporation likely will be held statutory strictly liable to
them for their PFCs removal costs. The application of the rules of law regarding statutory
strictly liability for PFCs removal costs to these circumstances has been discussed in
this memorandum at pages 8 – 13.
Second, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive comp.
damages in a nominal amount for their intentional failure to remove hazardous substance
from their water supplies damage if Defendant is held liable, under a tort that involves
trespass to real property, to them for such failure to act. Based on Minnesota commonlaw
and statutory law, Defendant will be held liable, under intentional continuing trespass to
real property as intentional failure to remove hazardous substance from their water
supplies, to Plaintiffs for its intentional failure to remove hazardous substance from
their water supplies, in violation of Minnesota Statutes Section 115B.04. Edward J. Kionka,
Torts In A Nutshell, West Publishing, 1992, SS 3-4 & 6-6; and Minn. Stat. S 115.04B(1)(2).
The rules of law regarding intentional failure to remove hazardous substance from
Plaintiffs’ water supplies have been discussed in this memorandum at the previous pages of
this section.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive comp.
damages in a nominal amount for their intentional failure to remove PFCs from their water
supplies damage because Defendant likely will be held liable, under intentional continuing
trespass to real property as intentional failure to remove PFCs from their water supplies, to them
for such failure to act. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site (Minn. Pollution Control Ag. Dec. 22, 2008)
(decision); PFBA In Groundwater of Southeast Metro. Area, Dec. 18, 2008, http://www.health.
state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/pfbasemetro.html; and Pl.’s 1st Compl, (Oct. 8, 2004).
The application of the rules of law regarding intentional failure to remove PFCs from Plaintiffs’
water supplies has been discussed in this memorandum at the previous pages of this section.
Third and last, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive comp.
damages in a nominal amount for their intentional failure to remove hazardous substance
from their water supplies damage if Plaintiffs cannot prove an actual damage. Lake Mille
Lacs Inv., Inc. v. Payne, 401 N.W.2d 387, 391 (Minn. App. 1987) (certiorari denied 1987).
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to comp.
damages in a nominal amount for their intentional failure to remove PFCs from
their water supplies damage because Plaintiffs will not be able to prove an actual damage
because 3M Corporation’s such failure to act did not cause an actual damage. 3M
Woodbury Disposal Site (Minn. Pollution Control Ag. Dec. 22, 2008) (decision); PFBA In
Groundwater of Southeast Metro. Area, Dec. 18, 2008, http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/
hazardous/topics/pfbasemetro.html; and Pl.’s 1st Compl, (Oct. 8, 2004).
39
2. Punitive Damages
Second, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive punitive damages
for their intentional failure to remove hazardous substance from their water supplies
damage if their circumstances satisfy the following criteria: 1) Defendant is held statutory
strictly liable to them for their hazardous substance removal costs; Edward J. Kionka, Torts
In A Nutshell, West Publishing, 1992, SS 3-4 & 6-6; and Minn. Stat. S 115B.04(1)(2);
2) awarding punitive damages under such circumstances is allowed by U. S. Constitution’s
Due Process Clause’s fundamental fairness requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section
549.20 and U. S. caselaw; Minn. Stat. S 549.20(3); U.S. Const. amend. XIV, S 1; and Sterling v.
Velsicol Chem. Corp., 855 F.2d 1188, 1215 - 17 (6th Cir. 1988); and 3) the amount of punitive
damages is allowed by U. S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause’s fundamental fairness
requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 549.20 and Minnesota and U. S. caselaw, and
the court’s discretion. Minn. Stat. S 549.20(3); Brantner Farms, Inc. v. Garner,
No. C6-01-1572, 2002 WL 1163559, at *6 – 7 (Minn. App. June 4, 2002); and State Farm
Mutual Auto Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 123 S. Ct. 1513, 1519 - 1520 (2003).
First, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive punitive damages for
their intentional failure to remove hazardous substance from their water supplies damage
if Defendant is held statutory strictly liable to them for their hazardous substance removal
costs. Edward J. Kionka, Torts In A Nutshell, West Publishing, 1992, SS 3-4 & 6-6; and Minn.
Stat. S 115B.04(1)(2). The rules of law regarding statutory strict liability for hazardous
substance removal costs have been discussed in this memorandum at pages 8 – 13.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive
punitive damages for their intentional failure to remove PFCs from their water supplies damage
because 3M Corporation likely will be held statutory strictly liable to them for their PFCs
removal costs. The application of the rules of law regarding statutory strict liability for PFCs
removal costs to these circumstances has been discussed in this memorandum at pages 8 – 13.
Second, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive punitive damages
for their intentional failure to remove hazardous substance from their water supplies
damage if awarding punitive damages is allowed by U. S. Constitution’s Due Process
Clause’s fundamental fairness requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 549.20 and U. S.
caselaw. Minn. Stat. S 549.20(3); and U.S. Const. amend. XIV, S 1.
First, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive punitive damages for
their intentional failure to remove hazardous substance from their water supplies damage
if awarding punitive damages is allowed by U. S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause’s
fundamental fairness requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 549.20. Minn. Stat.
S 549.20(3); and U.S. Const. amend. XIV, S 1. The rules of law regarding when awarding
punitive damages is allowed by U. S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause’s fundamental
fairness requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 549.20 have been discussed in
this memorandum at pages 28 - 30.
40
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive
punitive damages for their intentional failure to remove PFCs from their water supplies
damage because awarding punitive damages likely will be allowed by U. S. Constitution’s
Due Process Clause’s fundamental fairness requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section
549.20 because the significant burden to 3M Corporation that awarding punitive damages
would create when the total effect of the other consequences of its misconduct is taken into
consideration likely will be outweighed by the significant seriousness and extreme length of
its misconduct, its greatly superior knowledge of the facts of its misconduct, and its possible
delay in advisement of its misconduct. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site, at 2, 4, 5, & 7 (Minn.
Pollution Control Ag. Dec. 22, 2008) (decision); Paul Walsh and Tom Meerman, Health
Department Will Measure PFCs Levels In Adults Near 3M Plant, Landfills, Star Tribune, 1
(July 9, 2008), http://www.startribune.com; and Minn. Jud. Branch, Pub. Access To Case Rec. Of
Minn. Jud. Branch, http://www.pa.courts.state.mn.us/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID= 576297025.
The application of the rules of law regarding when awarding punitive damages is allowed
by U. S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause’s fundamental fairness requirements of
Minnesota Statutes Section 549.20 to these circumstances has been discussed in
this memorandum at pages 28 - 30.
Second and last, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive punitive
damages for their intentional failure to remove hazardous substance from their water
supplies damage if awarding punitive damages is allowed by U. S. Constitution’s Due
Process Clause’s fundamental fairness requirements of U. S. caselaw. Sterling v. Velsicol
Chem. Corp., 855 F.2d 1188, 1215 – 1216 (6th Cir. 1988). The rules of law regarding when
awarding punitive damages is allowed by U. S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause’s
fundamental fairness requirements of U. S. caselaw have been discussed in
this memorandum at pages 30 - 31.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive
punitive damages for their intentional failure to remove PFCs from their water supplies
damage because awarding punitive damages likely will be allowed by U. S. Constitution’s
Due Process Clause’s fundamental fairness requirement of U. S. caselaw. 3M Woodbury
Disposal Site, at 2 (Minn. Pollution Control Ag. Dec. 22, 2008) (decision). The application of
the rules of law regarding when awarding punitive damages is allowed by
U. S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause’s fundamental fairness requirements of U. S.
caselaw to these circumstances has been discussed in this memorandum at pages 30 - 31.
Third and last, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive punitive
damages for their intentional failure to remove hazardous substance from their water
supplies damage if the amount of their claim is allowed by the following rules of law:
1) U. S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause’s fundamental fairness requirements of
Minnesota Statutes Section 549.20; Minn. Stat. S 549.20(3); 2) U. S. Constitution’s
Due Process Clause’s fundamental fairness requirements of Minnesota and U. S. caselaw; Brantner Farms, Inc. v. Garner, No. C6-01-1572, 2002 WL 1163559, at *6 – 7 (Minn. App.
June 4, 2002); and State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 123 S. Ct. 1513,
1519 - 1520 (2003); and 3) the court’s discretion.
41
First, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive punitive damages for
their intentional failure to remove hazardous substance from their water supplies damage
if the amount of their claim is allowed by U. S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause’s
fundamental fairness requirements of Minnesota Statute Section 549.20. Minn. Stat.
S 549.20(3). The statutory requirements that must be considered when determining
whether an amount of punitive damages for intentional failure to remove hazardous
substance from their water supplies is allowable are the same as those for determining
whether to award punitive damages for intentional failure to remove hazardous substance
from their water supplies. The statutory rules of law regarding whether to award punitive
damages for intentional failure to remove hazardous substance from their water supplies
have been discussed in this memorandum at page 32.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive
punitive damages for their intentional failure to remove PFCs from their water supplies
damage because the amount of their claim likely will be allowed by U. S. Constitution’s
Due Process Clause’s fundamental fairness requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section
549.20 because the significant burden to 3M Corporation that awarding punitive damages
would create when the total effect of the other consequences of its misconduct is taken into
consideration likely will be outweighed by the significant seriousness and extreme length of
its misconduct, its greatly superior knowledge of the facts of its misconduct, and its possible
delay in advisement of its misconduct. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site, at 2, 4, 5, & 7
(Minn. Pollution Control Ag. Dec. 22, 2008) (decision); Paul Walsh and Tom Meerman, Health
Department Will Measure PFCs Levels In Adults Near 3M Plant, Landfills, Star Tribune, 1
(July 9, 2008), http://www.startribune.com; and Minn. Jud. Branch, Pub. Access To Case Rec. Of
Minn. Jud. Branch, http://www.pa.courts.state.mn.us/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID= 576297025.
The application of the statutory rules of law regarding whether to award punitive damages
for intentional failure to remove PFCs from their water supplies to these circumstances has
been discussed in this memorandum at page 32.
Second, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive punitive damages
for their intentional failure to remove hazardous substance from their water supplies
damage if the amount of their claim is allowed by U. S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause’s
fundamental fairness requirements of Minnesota and U. S. caselaw. Brantner Farms, Inc. v.
Garner, No. C6-01-1572, 2002 WL 1163559, at *6 – 7 (Minn. App. June 4, 2002); and
State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 123 S. Ct. 1513, 1519 - 1520 (2003).
The rules of law regarding whether an amount of punitive damages is allowed by U. S.
Constitution’s Due Process Clause’s fundamental fairness requirements of Minnesota and
U. S. caselaw have been discussed in this memorandum at page 32.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive
punitive damages for their intentional failure to remove PFCs from their water supplies
damage because the amount of their claim is allowed by U. S. Constitution’s Due Process
Clause’s fundamental fairness requirements of Minnesota and U. S. caselaw. 3M Woodbury
Disposal Site (Minn. Pollution Control Ag. Dec. 22, 2008) (decision). The application of
42
the rules of law regarding whether an amount of punitive damages is allowed by U. S.
Constitution’s Due Process Clause’s fundamental fairness requirements of Minnesota and
U. S. caselaw has been discussed in this memorandum at page 32.
Third and last, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive punitive
damages for their intentional failure to remove hazardous substance from their water
supplies damage if the amount of their claim is allowed by the court’s discretion. Based on
Minnesota commonlaw, the amount of punitive damages for intentional failure to remove
hazardous substance from their water supplies damage being at the court’s discretion is
an usual and customary practice.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive punitive
damages for their intentional failure to remove PFCs from their water supplies damage because
the amount of their claim is allowed by the court’s discretion because the court likely will
determine an amount that is based on the applicable rules of law and then grant it. The court’s
discretion likely will at least slightly diminish the amount of punitive damages for Plaintiffs’
intentional failure to remove PFCs from their water supplies damage because Honorable
Minnesota Tenth Judicial District Judge Mary Hannon has been making decisions during pretrial
hearings that seem to be based on “the letter” of the rules of law. As a result, if the jury awards
such punitive damages in an amount that she deems to be excessive under the rules of law, then
she likely will exercise her discretion in order to amend the amount.
3. Equitable Relief For Interest
Third, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to be granted interest for
their intentional failure to remove hazardous substance from their water supplies damage
if these circumstances exist: 1) they are entitled to be granted a judgment for an award;
and 2) the amount of their claim is that which is determined statutorily. Minn. Stat.
SS 549.09(1)(a), (1)(b), & (1).
First, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to be granted interest for
their intentional failure to remove hazardous substance from their water supplies damage
if they are entitled to a judgment for an award. Minn. Stat. S 549.09(1)(a). Plaintiffs’ ability
to prove that they are entitled to a judgment for an award has been discussed in
this memorandum at the previous pages of this section.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to be granted
interest for their intentional failure to remove PFCs from their water supplies damage because
they likely will be entitled to a judgment for an award. Plaintiffs’ likely ability to prove that they
are entitled to a judgment for an award has been discussed in this memorandum at the previous
pages of this section.
43
Second and last, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to be granted interest
for their intentional failure to remove hazardous substance from their water supplies
damage if the amount of their claim is that which is determined statutorily. Minn. Stat.
SS 549.09(1)(a), (1)(b), & (1). The rules of law regarding the amount of interest have been
discussed in this memorandum at page 16.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to be granted
interest for their intentional failure to remove PFCs from their water supplies damage
because the amount of their claim likely will be that which is determined statutorily. First,
Plaintiffs likely will be entitled to be granted prejudgment interest for their intentional
failure to remove PFCs from their water supplies damage on comp. damages, except those
that are for future damages. Last, Plaintiffs likely will be entitled to be granted
postjudgment interest for such damage on comp. damages and punitive damages.
The applicable interest rate is 4%. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site (Minn. Pollution Control Ag.
Dec. 22, 2008) (decision).
4. Equitable and Injunctive Relief For
An Order Requiring 3M Corporation To Notice Plaintiffs and Pay Their Remedies
Fourth and last, Plaintiffs will be able to prove that they are entitled to be granted an order
requiring Defendant to notice them and pay their remedies for their intentional failure to
remove hazardous substance from their water supplies damage if granting such is an usual
and customary practice. Based on Minnesota commonlaw, the granting of an order
requiring Defendant to notice Plaintiffs and pay their remedies is an usual and customary
practice.
In the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to be granted
an order requiring 3M Corporation to notice them and pay their remedies for their intentional
failure to remove PFCs from their water supplies damage. 3M Woodbury Disposal Site
(Minn. Pollution Control Ag. Dec. 22, 2008) (decision); and Bob Shaw, Judge Further Narrows
3M Lawsuit, Pioneer Press, B, 1 (Jan. 21, 2009), http://www.pioneerplanet.com.
Therefore, in the current case, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove their claim for
intentional failure to remove PFCs from their water supplies damage that was caused by
3M Corporation’s such failure to take such act, and, as a consequence, they likely will be
able to prove that they are entitled to receive several remedies. Plaintiffs likely will be able
to prove their claim of intentional failure to remove PFCs from their water supplies
damage by proving 3M Corporation’s intentional failure to remove PFCs from their water
supplies because 3M Corporation owed to them a duty to remove PFCs from their water
supplies, and 3M Corporation breached such duty by failing to take such act.
Consequently, Plaintiffs likely will be able to prove that they are entitled to receive
compensatory damages and punitive damages and be granted interest and equitable and
injunctive relief for an order requiring 3M Corporation to notice them and pay such for
their intentional failure to remove PFCs from their water supplies damage.
44
CONCLUSION
First, Plaintiffs likely will not be able to prove that the case should be certified as a class action
because the class is not so numerous that joinder of all of the members is impractical because
the size of the putative class is not sufficiently numerous. Second, Plaintiffs likely will be able
to prove their following claims for damages: 1) PFCs removal costs damage; 2) economic loss
damage; and 3) intentional failure to remove PFCs from their water supplies damage. In order to
prove that 3M Corporation is liable for their claims, Plaintiffs must prove the following:
1) 3M Corporation is statutorily strictly liable for their PFCs removal costs; 2) 3M Corporation is
liable, under willful and wanton entry into real property, for their physical injury to their real
property resulting from its willful and wanton causing of PFCs to enter into their water supplies;
and 3) 3M Corporation is liable, under intentional failure to remove from real property, for
intentionally failing to remove PFCs from their water supplies resulting from its failure to take
such action. The facts provide adequate proof of these claims. Therefore, Plaintiffs are likely to
be entitled to receive or be granted the following remedies: 1) compensatory damages, litigation
expenses, interest, and an order requiring 3M Corporation to notice them and pay such for
their PFCs removal costs damage; 2) compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, and
an order requiring 3M Corporation to notice them and pay such for their economic loss damage;
and 3) compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, and an order requiring
3M Corporation to notice them and pay such for their intentional failure to remove PFCs from
their water supplies damage.