General Electric Co. v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc.
Georgia Supreme Court
279 Ga. 77 (2005)

- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc. (plaintiff) operated a store on approximately six acres in Rome, Georgia. This store was near a General Electric Company (defendant) plant where polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were used. Lowe’s sought to expand the store into a larger superstore and entered into an agreement with a developer. The developer agreed to purchase an adjoining parcel of land and lease it back to Lowe’s. The developer and Lowe’s discovered that the adjoining parcel of land was contaminated with PCBs. The developer and Lowe’s tried again with a different adjoining parcel but ran into the same problem. Lowe’s also discovered that its existing parcel was contaminated with PCBs. Lowe’s sued General Electric, alleging federal environmental claims along with trespass, nuisance, negligence, and negligence per se. After a trial, the jury awarded Lowe’s damages, including $18 million in lost profits expected from the planned superstore and $2 million for reduced rental value of the existing land. General Electric appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit certified a question to the Georgia Supreme Court. The certified question asked whether Lowe’s could recover for lost profits related to the planned superstore, even though the development of the superstore required the purchase of additional land.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fletcher, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 821,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.