Being "Legally Right" Doesn't Protect You From Conflict

I’ve shared observations of what behaviors have gotten people into conflict. I’ve discussed transcribing oral understandings, sharing “bad news” early and misrepresentations and misperceptions.

In this posting I’ll suggest one that might seem a bit strange at first: how conflict can result in relationships when one party has complete legal right to their position.  Being “legally right” doesn’t protect you from conflict.

Several decades ago a farmer, who is since retired, had granted an easement and right-of-way to a natural gas pipeline company. The original easement granted the company full right to replace the pipeline when it deemed it necessary to do so. No notification nor additional compensation to the landowner was required in that original agreement. After a number of years the company determined it was necessary to replace and upgrade the pipeline. They held public sessions to explain the need for the work and to decide the best time of year to do it so they could avoid inconveniencing the farmers as little as possible. Additionally, the company published notices in local newspapers explaining the need for the replacement and detailing the work to be done.

Over the years the farmer became upset whenever he saw company employees on his land monitoring the pipeline. When it came time to replace the pipeline, he saw a survey team on his property and confronted them. The surveyors identified themselves and explained what they were doing. The farmer perceived the surveyors to be rude and belligerent.

Later, after the pipeline had been replaced, the farmer filed a complaint against the pipeline company. He contended the company did not return the top soil to its original condition. He contended he would suffer crop loss unless the top soil was reworked to its original state.

In mediation the representatives of the pipeline company shared copies of the original easement and right-of-way, records of public sessions and copies of notices published in the newspapers. They also shared photographs of the property before and after the work. They contended that not only were they “legally” in the right, the company had in fact gone far beyond what was legally required to work with all the landowners in the area, including this one.

Could the company have avoided this conflict? From the discussion in the mediation, it became clear that if it had treated this farmer more as an individual and accorded him more personal attention, he probably would not have been so distraught.  I’ll leave it to the reader to consider if it was worth the time and money for the company to put in that extra effort. Even when one party has full legal rights, the other party may create and sustain a long lasting and expensive conflict.