Publication Date
April 2018
Abstract
Sinkholes can cause property damage, injury to people and harm to the environment. It is therefore not surprising that myriad legal issues arise in the context of sinkholes and the actual and potential harms they present. This paper will focus on those legal issues and will include a discussion of potential causes of action (i.e., legal claims), both under statutory laws (e.g., state laws like in Pennsylvania under which sinkholes can be deemed a nuisance) and common law (i.e., claims derived from longstanding judicial precedent), and available damages (i.e., monetary compensation) and other remedies. Mining activities and water supply wells for industrial, commercial and residential uses, which pump groundwater in karst and other sinkhole prone areas, are often a direct cause of sinkholes. Yet most government agencies regulating mining and other related industries are ill-equipped, either technically or politically, to manage the potential, and in some cases, inevitable damage. Few, in fact, recognize the direct relationship between activities they typically permit, the formation of sinkholes, and the resulting harms. This paper will also discuss both bringing a case for sinkhole remediation (direct lawsuits and mining permit appeals) and defending sinkhole-related claims. Because cases involving karst terrain and sinkholes tend to turn on the presentation of highly technical scientific principles, educating the court is critical, as is the experience and expertise of a top-notch expert witness. This paper will discuss the ways to effectively present such cases in court, including the presentation of technical witnesses/experts. Two case studies will be examined. One case involves a school and a neighboring quarry, in which the court found that a quarry was the direct cause of sinkholes opening in the surrounding area. As a result, the court held that the quarry constituted a nuisance, and therefore denied a permit extension allowing further mining. Another case study will examine sinkholes opening near a major roadway in an area where no mining is known to have occurred.
Rights Information
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5038/9780991000982.1053
When Sinkholes Become Legal Problems
Sinkholes can cause property damage, injury to people and harm to the environment. It is therefore not surprising that myriad legal issues arise in the context of sinkholes and the actual and potential harms they present. This paper will focus on those legal issues and will include a discussion of potential causes of action (i.e., legal claims), both under statutory laws (e.g., state laws like in Pennsylvania under which sinkholes can be deemed a nuisance) and common law (i.e., claims derived from longstanding judicial precedent), and available damages (i.e., monetary compensation) and other remedies. Mining activities and water supply wells for industrial, commercial and residential uses, which pump groundwater in karst and other sinkhole prone areas, are often a direct cause of sinkholes. Yet most government agencies regulating mining and other related industries are ill-equipped, either technically or politically, to manage the potential, and in some cases, inevitable damage. Few, in fact, recognize the direct relationship between activities they typically permit, the formation of sinkholes, and the resulting harms. This paper will also discuss both bringing a case for sinkhole remediation (direct lawsuits and mining permit appeals) and defending sinkhole-related claims. Because cases involving karst terrain and sinkholes tend to turn on the presentation of highly technical scientific principles, educating the court is critical, as is the experience and expertise of a top-notch expert witness. This paper will discuss the ways to effectively present such cases in court, including the presentation of technical witnesses/experts. Two case studies will be examined. One case involves a school and a neighboring quarry, in which the court found that a quarry was the direct cause of sinkholes opening in the surrounding area. As a result, the court held that the quarry constituted a nuisance, and therefore denied a permit extension allowing further mining. Another case study will examine sinkholes opening near a major roadway in an area where no mining is known to have occurred.
