Environmental Legal Questions

I am only licensed to practice law in Ohio, but my advise is for you to contact the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection at the relevant office shown on their website. http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/contacts___directions/20298 Each well has a drilling permit with requirements to prevent this type of problem from occurring.  If the drilling permit requirements have been breached, Penn DEP is required to take appropriate enforcement action. You may also have a private cause of action against the drilling if you can prove that the drilling action "caused" your contamination problem.  For that, contact a qualified environmental attorney licensed to practice in Pennsylvania.  Good luck. Daniel A. Brown, Esq. - Dayton, Ohio... Read Answer

I am only licensed to practice law in Ohio and this is a state law issue.  Consequently, you need to contact a Pennsylvania attorney to discuss the nuances of your state's law on this question. For the sake of comparison, you would have a potential cause of action against your neighbor in Ohio.  The Ohio Supreme Court's decision in McGlashan v. Spade Rockledge Corp., 62 Ohio St. 2d 55 (1980) appears to be the controlling case in support of application of the "reasonable use doctrine." "A possessor of land is not unqualifiedly privileged to deal with surface water as he pleases, nor is he absolutely prohibited from interfering with the natural flow of surface waters to the detriment of others. Each possessor is legally privileged to make a reason able use of his land, even though the flow of surface waters is altered thereby and causes some harm to others. He incurs liability only when his harmful interference with the flow of surface water is unreasonable. In determining the reasonableness of an interference, the trier of fact is to be guided by the rules stated in 4 Restatement on Torts 2d 108-142, Sections 822 831." So, in your case, a court would most likely consider whether your neighbor had any other choice on how to handle the storm water drainage coming onto his property.....other than directing it onto your property. Good luck. Daniel A. Brown - dbrown@brownlawdayton.com... Read Answer

I am only licensed to practice in Ohio and this will be a state law issue, governed by Georgia law (where the property is located).  Notwithstanding, I have a few thoughts. 1)  Proving that someone "lied" is a difficult burden.  In order to have a cause of action against the listing agent, you will need to prove that he/she intentionally or recklessly made a false statement, and that you reasonably relied upon that statement to your detriment.  If the listing agent honestly believed that the mildew problem had been remedied, he/she is probably protected. 2)  A court will likely determine that the realtor's disclosure of a mildew problem (regardless of his/her explanation that the problem had been fixed) should have alerted you and your inspector to look more closely for evidence of mold.  If the inspector could not find such evidence, a court will likely not determine that the realtor should have found it. 3)  Exposure to mold affects different people differently.  Some get sick, others don't.  Therefore, proving a connection between your exposure to mold and a specific illness will be difficult.  At the very least, you will need a medical professional's opinion to satisfy the burden of proof on the causation issue....and most doctors will not give such an opinion. My advice is to consult with a Georgia attorney with specific experience dealing with mold claims. There may be a Georgia law or regulation that I am not aware of that could help you.   Good luck. Daniel A. Brown Brown Law Office LLC, Dayton, Ohio... Read Answer

According to the American Cancer Society, there is no evidence that exposure to cell towers causes cancer or any other illness.  http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/AtHome/cellular-phone-towers Do you have evidence showing causation?  If not, what is the real concern?  Also, I am not aware of any statutory or regulatory duty for a school district to consult with or inform parents about the use of its real property.  In fact, the generation of $1,200 in rental income per month should be considered a financial benefit of the district that the students and parents enjoy indirectly.... Read Answer

Generally speaking, the answer to your question is no.  However, if you can prove that a governmental land-use regulation denies you "any economically viable use" of your property, it may be considered a "regulatory taking" of your property that may entitle you to just compensation. With regard to classifying a portion of a property as a wetlands or sensitive area, the burden of proving that there is no "economically viable use" available to the property owner is difficult to overcome.  If the classification affects the entire property, the burden is lessened. To press a claim for regulatory taking, a property owner needs to initiate an inverse condemnation proceeding to recover the just compensation for the taking of his or her property, provided that procedural hurdles have been overcome. Such a case could be filed in federal or state court by an attorney properly licensed in the applicable court. Good luck.... Read Answer

I suggest that you contact your local county health department and the Illinois EPA first to see if they will open an investigation on the health effects to nearby residents of the farmer's use of pesticides. The difficulty in prevailing in a private lawsuit is that you will have the burden or proving that your health issues are caused by the pesticides.  This can be an expensive and difficult task, which definitely will require a medical expert on the causation issue. On the other hand, the public agencies have an obligation to undertake a reasonable investigation in response to such a citizen's complaint. Good luck. Dan... Read Answer

I am only licensed to practice law in the State of Ohio, so I cannot provide a definitive answer about your California issue.  However, because much of the environmental law practice is based on the federal laws and regulations...sometimes implemented by the states, I can provide the following general comments based on my 22 years of environmental law practice. First of all, is USEPA or Cal/EPA the lead agency in your matter?  If it is USEPA, I suggest that you review the USEPA's guidance document on "Ability to Pay." http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/cleanup/superfund/genpol-atp-rpt.pdf Generally speaking, USEPA is not interest in taking an older person's home or social security income to pay for remediation costs at an old site.  On the other hand, they don't like the idea of people passing on significant wealth to family instead of using it to clean up sites contaminated by the person's former business.  My suggestion is to contact USEPA (or Cal/EPA) to obtain the required forms to show that your father does not have "the ability to pay" for the cleanup.  That may involve submitting 5 years of tax returns. You may be able to help your father file the required paperwork without an attorney. Good luck. Daniel A. Brown, Esq. - Brown Law Office LLC, Dayton, Ohio... Read Answer

In Georgia, the workers' compensation law is almost impossible to penetrate.  The remedy you would have is for a defective product, namely the forklift which was missing the safety device.  You can bring a case against the manufacturer of the forklift.   The workers' comp bar would not stop your case against a third party for a defective product which it manufactured.  I used to represent a forklift manufacturer which was regularly sued by workers injured on the job by using the product.... Read Answer