The Contaminated Well and the Neighbor's Easement
Rural neighbors own adjoining parcels. Twenty years ago, the owner of Parcel A granted Parcel B an express easement "for access to the county road" across a dirt path on Parcel A. The easement was recorded. Parcel B later subdivided into three lots, and all three now use the path. Parcel A's current owner drilled a well near the path; runoff from the well contaminated Parcel B's water supply. Parcel A also installed a locked gate across the path, giving keys only to the original grantee, not the new lot owners. Parcel B sues to remove the gate and for damages from the contamination. Parcel A argues the easement was personal to the original grantee and that the well is a reasonable use of its land.
1. Is the easement appurtenant or in gross, and does it extend to the subdivided lots?
Read the worked answer
The easement is appurtenant, not in gross. An easement is appurtenant when it benefits the holder in the use of a particular parcel; here the easement expressly serves "access to the county road" for Parcel B, benefiting the land rather than a person. Appurtenant easements run with the land and pass automatically to successors. The subdivision question turns on whether the easement may be extended to the new lots. The general rule is that an easement appurtenant may not be expanded beyond its original scope. If the original easement served a single parcel and the subdivision materially increases the burden on the servient estate - three households instead of one - the new lot owners may not use it absent an express right. However, if the easement was intended to serve the whole parcel and the subdivision is a normal development, some courts allow reasonable use consistent with the original purpose. The recorded terms control; if they are silent, the burden increase likely bars automatic extension to all three lots.
2. Can Parcel A lock the gate? Analyze the servient owner's rights and the easement holder's rights.
Read the worked answer
Parcel A generally may not lock the gate in a way that excludes the easement holder. The owner of the servient estate retains the right to use its land, including installing gates, but may not unreasonably interfere with the easement. A locked gate that gives keys only to the original grantee effectively denies access to the easement holder's successors and is an unreasonable interference. The servient owner may impose reasonable regulations - such as requiring the gate be kept closed to contain livestock - but must provide access to all who hold the easement. If the gate is necessary for legitimate purposes, Parcel A must furnish keys or combinations to the rightful easement holders. Removing the gate or compelling key distribution is the appropriate remedy.
3. Is Parcel A liable for contaminating Parcel B's well? Discuss the tort theories.
Read the worked answer
Parcel A is likely liable. Drilling a well and allowing runoff to contaminate a neighbor's water supply can support claims in negligence and nuisance. Negligence requires a duty of reasonable care, breach, causation, and damages; a landowner owes neighbors a duty not to use land in a way that unreasonably harms them. If Parcel A failed to contain runoff or site the well properly, that is a breach. Private nuisance - a substantial, unreasonable interference with another's use and enjoyment of land - fits well: contaminating a water supply is substantial and unreasonable. If the well involves an abnormally dangerous activity, strict liability could apply, though routine well drilling usually does not qualify. Parcel B can recover damages for the contamination and may seek injunctive relief to abate the condition. Parcel A's "reasonable use" defense fails because contaminating a neighbor's water is not reasonable use.