Bradley v. American Smelting & Refining Co.
709 P.2d 782 (1984), 104 Wn.2d 677 (1985) (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The intentional deposit of microscopic, airborne particles onto another's land constitutes a trespass if the plaintiff can prove that the deposit caused actual and substantial damages.
Facts:
- American Smelting and Refining Company (ASARCO) has operated a copper smelter in Ruston, Washington since 1905.
- The smelting process emits particulate matter, including microscopic particles of arsenic and cadmium.
- Since 1905, ASARCO has been aware that winds carry these particulate emissions over Vashon Island.
- Michael O. Bradley and Marie A. Bradley own and occupy property on Vashon Island, approximately 4 miles from the smelter.
- Particulate emissions from ASARCO's smelter have been and continue to be deposited on the Bradleys' land.
- These particles are microscopic and cannot be detected by the human senses.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael and Marie Bradley sued ASARCO in King County Superior Court (a state court of first instance) for intentional trespass and nuisance.
- The case was removed by the defendant to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.
- The Bradleys filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability for the trespass claim.
- The U.S. District Court certified four specific legal questions to the Supreme Court of Washington for resolution under state law.
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 the intentional deposit of microscopic, airborne particulate matter, undetectable by human senses, onto another person's property give rise to a cause of action for trespass?
Opinions:
Majority - Callow, J.
Yes, the intentional deposit of microscopic particulates undetectable by the human senses gives rise to a cause of action for trespass as well as a claim of nuisance, provided the plaintiff can prove actual and substantial damages. The court found that ASARCO possessed the requisite intent for trespass because intent is not a desire to cause harm, but rather knowledge with 'substantial certainty' that an action will result in an invasion of another's interest. ASARCO knew its smelter produced particles and that wind would deposit them on neighboring land. The court modernized the tort of trespass, holding that the historical requirements of a 'direct' invasion by a 'tangible' object are outdated; an invasion by microscopic particles is sufficient. However, to balance the interests of landowners and industrial producers, the court departed from the common law rule that any trespass is actionable, and held that a plaintiff in such a case must prove 'actual and substantial damages' to succeed on a trespass claim.
Analysis:
This decision significantly modernizes the common law tort of trespass to address harms caused by industrial air pollution. By eliminating the archaic requirements of a 'direct' invasion by a 'tangible' object, the court made trespass a viable cause of action for environmental contamination by microscopic particles. However, the court's creation of a new element—the requirement of 'actual and substantial damages'—serves as a crucial gatekeeping function. This element balances the protection of property rights against the realities of an industrial society, preventing a flood of litigation for trivial or harmless invasions while providing a remedy for significant environmental harm.
Unlock the full brief for Bradley v. American Smelting & Refining Co.