Litigation Against Piqua Moves Foward
Vol. III, No. 228 - A ruling from a Delaware County court allows the battery burning lawsuit to move ahead
A Delaware County Common Please Court ruling has kept most of the claims alive in a lawsuit over the open-air burning of lithium-ion batteries at Piqua’s former water treatment facility, allowing nearby residents to keep pressing their case against the City of Piqua and two private companies. In an eleven page ruling, Visiting Judge Richard Frye refused to shut the case down early and instead opened the door to a long and detailed look at what happened, who knew what, and how it affected the people who live nearby.
The case, filed by 24 households, centers on more than one hundred burns of lithium-ion batteries that allegedly took place between 2018 and 2023 at the water treatment plan on State Route 66. Residents say batteries were hauled in from across North America, Europe, and Asia, burned in the open air under the label of firefighter training, and released hazardous chemicals toward nearby homes and the Great Miami River. According to the complaint, many residents later tested positive for heavy metals in their blood and reported breathing problems, skin issues, and neurological symptoms.
In this ruling, the court denied most of the private defendants’ requests to dismiss the case at the very beginning, which is important because it means the plaintiffs will get a chance to gather documents, question witnesses, and bring in experts. The judge stressed that at this point in the litigation, the families only need to present a clear, factual story at this stage, not prove every detail now.
Several core claims survived the judge’s scrutiny. The negligence claim will go forward, based on allegations that the private companies ran an abnormally dangerous operation, exceeded the limits of their permits, and hid the true risks from the public. The judge noted that if the facts are proven, state air-pollution laws could help show both a legal duty to nearby residents and a breach of that duty.
The judge also allowed both private nuisance and public nuisance claims to proceed, recognizing that the families have alleged interference with their ability to use and enjoy their homes, as well as threats to public health. The court pointed out that nuisance and negligence can overlap in environmental cases like this, and that emissions that endanger public health may qualify as a public nuisance under Ohio regulations.
In addition, the court kept the trespass claim, which is based on the idea that particles and chemicals from the burns physically settled on people’s property, not just in the air. The judge explained that when pollutants actually land on property and cause damage, residents may seek relief under trespass as well as nuisance, so it is too early to throw that claim out.
The families’ claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress also remain in the case. The complaint describes a community living for years under toxic smoke and uncertainty about health and water safety, and the court held that, if proven, that kind of sustained exposure and fear could meet the high bar for severe emotional distress. The strict liability claim for abnormally dangerous activity survived too, with the judge noting that burning lithium-ion batteries on this scale might ultimately be treated like handling explosives or uranium, but that more facts are needed before making that call.
The court also allowed a civil conspiracy claim to proceed, finding that the families had described enough joint action among the defendants tied to the surviving tort claims. At this stage, the question is not whether the families are right, but whether, if their story is true, the law would give them a remedy; the judge answered yes for most of their theories.
Not every claim survived. The court dismissed the “battery” claim, finding that the complaint described widespread releases of pollution, not targeted physical contact with specific individuals. It also dismissed a stand-alone count for recklessness and gross negligence, treating it as background for possible punitive damages rather than a separate cause of action. Finally, the court threw out the fraud claim, ruling that the families had not identified specific false statements, a duty to disclose, or clear reliance by particular residents in the detailed way Ohio rules require.
Even with those cuts, the ruling marks a significant shift from argument to evidence. The judge ordered the private defendants to exchange initial disclosures, meet to plan discovery, and file a joint plan, and set a pretrial conference for February 13, 2026, with the City of Piqua required to attend unless its separate immunity motion is granted before then. The court also signaled that deciding the City’s immunity just on the written pleadings that have already been filed with the court may not be possible, which suggests the City could soon face the same kind of fact-finding as the private defendants.
For residents and city leaders, this means the story of the Piqua burns could move into a more public, more detailed phase, with experts, data, and testimony instead of only dueling legal briefs. It also means that questions about how communities should govern dangerous new technologies, how closely cities must watch their own partners, and what happens when risk is pushed onto neighbors instead of shared in the open will stay in the spotlight for months, if not years, to come.
Announcing our January Community Survey!
Every other month, this publication takes time to ask our readers how they feel about the happenings in their hometown! What are the challenges? What are the opportunities? Is your hometown headed in the right direction? Our survey is the easiest way for you to express your thoughts. Next month, this publication will report out on the results.
Thanks for your time and your participation! It is greatly appreciated!
A New Way to Support This Work
Our readers and subscribers have been asking for a new way to support the work being done here at Civic Capacity! Some of our readers do not like the idea of having to sign up for another subscription service. Some of our subscribers occasionally want to give more support through a one-time transaction.
Civic Capacity is partnering with “Buy Me A Coffee” to give our readers, subscribers and friends an opportunity to give one-time support to Civic Capacity. Personally, I don’t like coffee, but I will never turn down a nice iced tea. If you feel compelled to support this effort, just click the button below.
Thanks for reading today’s Civic Capacity Newsletter! Please feel free to share this information with your friends and neighbors.
Also, please consider subscribing to our work. If you are a free subscriber, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. For less than $1 a week, you can get timely and conversational updates about the decisions that are impacting you and your community!