X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The trial court awarded a temporary injunction in favor of the appellees, Eastman Chemical Co. and Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas) LP, prohibiting the appellants, Oscar Wardon Still, Future Income L.L.C., Rabbit Creek Mountain Mud Blast, Rabbit Creek ATV-RV Park and East Texas All-Terrain Monsters (collectively Still), from, among other things, allowing four-wheelers or other motorized vehicles to ride over the appellees’ pipelines inside Still’s all-terrain vehicle park. HOLDING:Affirmed. At common law, a fee owner may not interfere with an easement holder’s reasonable use and enjoyment of that easement. Nor may the property owner make a use of the surface that might endanger or interfere with a pipeline. Phillips Pipe Line Co. v. Razo, 420 S.W.2d 691 (Tex. 1967). The rights of an easement holder may be protected by injunction. Craft v. Freeport Oil Co., 563 S.W.2d 866 (Tex. App. – Amarillo 1978, no writ). The appellees sought to enjoin Still from allowing his ATV patrons to further erode the soil covering the appellees’ pipelines. The trial court heard conflicting evidence over who was responsible for the loss of depth cover. The appellees’ testimony and evidence attributed the lost depth cover to ATV use, which was clearly sponsored and encouraged by Still. The appellees’ witnesses warned of an imminent threat of a pipeline breach that would endanger the pipeline and the nearby neighborhood if the ATV use was allowed to continue over the appellees’ pipelines. There was direct testimony that the harm caused by allowing the ATVs to continue to ride over the appellees’ pipelines could lead to an explosion. Such an explosion would endanger the surrounding homes and neighborhood. The common law in Texas expressly forbids a surface estate owner from making use of the surface in any way that endangers a pipeline, and � drawing all reasonable inferences from the evidence before the trial court � it is clear that the trial court had before it evidence that would support a conclusion that allowing Still to continue his activities, unfettered, would endanger the appellees’ pipelines. “[W]e cannot say the trial court abused its discretion by granting the temporary injunction.” OPINION:Morriss, J.; Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.