Under the common law systems that have developed in Great Britain and the United States, real property has been held in high esteem. Land, due to its uniqueness, and scarcity has unique doctrines that the law only applies to it. Tort law and property law often collide with each other. Personal and real property often incur damage as a result of the negligence of individuals. As a result of one’s negligence, damages must be paid to make the injured party whole. While these damages are mostly based on economically putting the party back where it was before the injury, some injuries are not economically calculable. These damages tend to be controversial and have traditionally not been awarded for damage to personal property. Despite the general rule for personal property, Michigan courts treat real property differently.
In Price v. High Pointe Oil Company (available at: http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20110825_C298460_35_298460.OPIN.PDF) the plaintiff homeowner sued the defendant oil company after her home was flooded with oil. The plaintiff had previously used the defendant to fill up her oil-burning furnace. After some time, the plaintiff purchased a new, non oil-burning furnace and discontinued purchasing oil from the defendant. After purchasing the new furnace, the plaintiff sold her old furnace and the oil tank to a third party. After a clerical error, the oil company set up an oil delivery. The oil company began to pump oil into the line that used to be connected to the oil tank. Because the oil tank was no longer in place the oil pumped directly in the plaintiff’s basement. In all, just under 400 gallons of oil were pumped into the basement.
As a result of the oil company’s negligence, the plaintiff’s home had to be demolished and the plaintiff lost a number of personal items. In addition to economic damages the defendant was depressed over the loss of her home. She felt great shame, embarrassment and humiliation in moving into her parents’ house. The plaintiff was awarded $100,000 in non-economic damages and the defendants challenged the award.
In Price, the Michigan Court of appeals ruled that non-economic plaintiffs may seek non-economic damages in negligence actions for the destruction of real property. The court’s decision turned on the historical and theoretical differences between personal property and real property. One of the most important distinctions between real property and personal property (generally) is that the former is completely unique. No piece of land is exactly the same. While Michigan courts have refused to allow non-economic damages for the destruction personal property (like a dog, car, or bicycle), the court failed to extend those prior holdings to real property.
In addition to each parcel of land’s unique characteristics, the court noted that homes have a unique value “which often provides as much if not more feelings of emotion and memories as it does shelter.” Moreover, the court noted that property allows special remedies for the breach of contracts for the sale of land such as specific performance.
This case is just one of many that highlights the special importance that land plays in our society. The implications of this case remain unclear, although it could often be cited for the enduring proposition that real property, above all else, holds a special place under the law.
