Watson Land Co. v. Shell Oil Co.

Good Law
130 Cal. App. 4th 69·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 931·2005 Daily Journal DAR 6797·29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 343·35 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20114
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 9, 2005B155019California3,609 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ashmann-Gerst, J.

INTRODUCTION

When respondent Watson Land Company (Watson) discovered groundwater and soil contamination under its land (the Watson Center), it claimed that appellant Shell Oil Company (Shell), among others, was responsible. A jury awarded Watson $3,915,851 for the cost of cleanup of contamination caused by the leakage of leaded gasoline from pipelines Shell was operating under the Watson Center. Additionally, the jury found that Shell derived a $14,275,237 benefit when it failed to clean up the contamination and awarded that amount to Watson pursuant to Civil Code section 3334. Shell appeals and urges reversal on the following grounds: (1) Because Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) settled with Watson and agreed to pay for the entire clean-up of the Watson Center, ARCO was the real party in interest and Watson lacked standing to sue; (2) at a minimum, ARCO should have been joined as a coplaintiff at trial as an indispensable party; (3) Watson’s evidence of causation was based on inadmissible evidence; and (4) the 1992 amendment to Civil Code section 3334 allowing a plaintiff to recover the benefits obtained by a trespasser should not have been applied because Shell was…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.