Borland v. Sanders Lead Co., Inc.
369 So. 2d 523, 12 ERC 2017 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An invasion of a landowner's right to exclusive possession of property by invisible particulate matter can constitute a trespass if the invasion is intentional, reasonably foreseeable, and results in substantial damage to the property.
Facts:
- J.H. Borland, Sr., and Sarah M. Borland owned approximately 159 acres of land used for raising cattle, growing crops, and maintaining a pecan orchard.
- In 1968, Sanders Lead Company began operating a lead smelter on property adjacent to the Borlands' land.
- The smelting process resulted in the emission of lead particulates and sulfoxide gases.
- Sanders Lead Company installed a filter system, known as a 'bag house,' to control emissions, but the system's cooling component failed on two occasions, causing the filter bags to catch fire.
- The Borlands alleged that due to the malfunctioning filter system, dangerous accumulations of lead particulates and sulfoxide deposits settled on their property.
- The Borlands claimed the pollution made their property unsuitable for raising cattle or growing crops.
Procedural Posture:
- J.H. and Sarah Borland (Plaintiffs) filed an action for trespass against Sanders Lead Company (Defendant) in an Alabama trial court.
- The case was tried before a judge without a jury (a bench trial or 'ore tenus').
- The trial court rendered a judgment in favor of the Defendant, Sanders Lead Company.
- The Borlands (Appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Alabama.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a company's emission of invisible lead particulates and sulfoxide gases, which are deposited onto neighboring land and cause substantial damage, constitute an actionable trespass?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam (All Justices Concur)
Yes. The emission of invisible lead particulates and gases that settle on and cause substantial damage to neighboring land constitutes an actionable trespass. The court held that the trial court misapplied the law in several respects. First, compliance with the Alabama Air Pollution Control Act does not shield a defendant from liability for private remedies, as the Act explicitly preserves such actions. Second, an increase in the property's commercial value due to its proximity to industry does not negate the damages owed for the harm caused by the trespass. The court abandoned the outdated 'dimensional test,' which distinguished trespass from nuisance based on whether the intruding agent was visible to the naked eye. Instead, it adopted a modern view where the critical distinction is the interest interfered with: trespass protects the interest in exclusive possession, while nuisance protects the interest in use and enjoyment. An indirect invasion by microscopic particles constitutes a trespass when it interferes with exclusive possession by causing substantial physical damage to the property (the res).
Analysis:
This decision significantly modernizes Alabama's trespass law by expanding its application to pollution by microscopic particles, moving away from the historical tangible/intangible distinction. It provides landowners with a more potent legal remedy against industrial polluters than nuisance, as trespass focuses on the invasion of a possessory interest and may not require the balancing of utilities that nuisance law often involves. By establishing a clear test for 'indirect trespass,' the court provides a framework for future environmental tort litigation. This ruling strengthens property rights against industrial encroachment, holding that regulatory compliance is not a shield against liability for tangible harm to private property.
