Lozar v. Birds Eye Foods, Inc.
United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan
678 F. Supp. 2d 589 (2009)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
Randall and Heather Lozar and 33 others (the Lozars) (plaintiffs) lived on or owned property near a fruit-processing plant owned and operated by Birds Eye Foods, Inc. (BEF) (defendant). The Lozars alleged that BEF’s spray irrigation, unpermitted landfill, and buried debris in the facility’s soil caused increased levels of contaminants in the groundwater surrounding the facility. The Lozars alleged that their water was discolored, smelled, left stains, and was undrinkable. The Lozars claimed to have suffered from a variety of symptoms related to the groundwater contamination, including hair loss, rashes, tumors, and several other maladies that doctors could not determine causes for. The Lozars also alleged that an unusual number of pets that had drunk the water had died, became ill, or given birth to deformed offspring. The Lozars filed a state common-law claim of negligence and a claim to recover response and remediation costs under federal and state environmental statutes. BEF denied responsibility for any groundwater contamination. BEF moved to dismiss a portion of the claim for negligence, which included a claim of negligence per se based on BEF’s alleged violation of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Maloney, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
