Docstoc

Bradley v. American Smelting and Refining Co

Document Sample
Bradley v. American Smelting and Refining Co Powered By Docstoc
					                   Bradley v. American Smelting and Refining Co.

                             709 P.2d 782 (Wash. 1984)



Parties:
              Plaintiff – Bradley – Property owners who had microscopic particles
              on it.
              Defendant – American Smelting and Refining Co. – Company that
              smelts copper.

Facts:
       Part of D’s smelting process, D emits into the atmosphere gasses and
particulate matter. Some particulate emissions of cadmium and arsenic from D’s
plant have been continually deposited on P’s land. D had been aware of this since it
took over the plant in 1905. D was also aware that sometimes the wind cases the
particulate matter to blow over to the island on which P’s property is located.

Procedural Posture:
       Case was initially started in state court but was removed to federal district
court. P moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability for the trespass.

Issue:
       Did the D have the requisite intent to commit intentional trespass as a matter
of law?
       Does an intentional deposit of microscopic particles undetectable by the
human senses upon a person’s property give rise to a cause of action for trespassory
invasion of the person’s right to exclusive possession of property as well as a claim
of nuisance?

     Does the cause of action for trespassory invasion require proof of actual
damages?

Holding:
     The court dismisses P’s claim because P failed to show actual and substantial
damages from the trespass.

Legal Reasoning:

Legal Reasoning – Issue 1
       The court found that D had the requisite intent needed to commit intentional
trespass as a matter of law. The court found from the Second Restatement of Torts
on 15b:
       If the actor knows that the consequences are certain or substantially certain
       to result from this act and still goes ahead the law treats him as if he had in
       fact desired to produce the result.
The court reasoned that the D acted on his own volition and had to have known with
substantial certainty that the law of gravity would put the particulate matter on
someone’s property somewhere.

Legal Reasoning – Issue 2
       The court reasoned that the trespassory invasion doesn’t have to be “direct”
or an “object, or something tangible”. The court said that weather assures that
pollutants deposited in one place will end up somewhere else, even though the actor
isn’t watching it. Also, the trespass doesn’t have to be a tangible object because the
court held in Martin v. Reynolds Metals that gaseous and particulate matter
constituted a trespass.

In order to recover for trespass of land, a plaintiff must show
       1.     An invasion affecting an interest in the exclusive possession of his
              property.
       2.     An intentional doing of the act which results in the invasion
       3.     Reasonable foreseeability that the act done could result in an invasion
              of P’s possessory interest
       4.     Substantial damages to the res.

Legal Reasoning – Issue 3
     The court dismissed his claim because P failed to show actual and substantial
damages.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:220
posted:9/30/2010
language:English
pages:2