Martin v. Reynolds Metals Co.
221 Or. 86, 342 P.2d 790 (1959)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trespass is any intentional intrusion that invades a possessor's protected interest in the exclusive possession of their land, regardless of whether the intrusion is by visible objects or by invisible microscopic particles or energy.
Facts:
- Defendant, Reynolds Metals Co., operated an aluminum reduction plant near Troutdale, Oregon.
- The plant's production process caused the emanation of fluoride compounds in the form of invisible gases and particulates.
- Between August 1951 and January 1956, these airborne fluoride compounds were continuously deposited upon the plaintiffs' nearby land.
- The fluoride compounds contaminated the forage and water on the plaintiffs' property.
- Plaintiffs' cattle were poisoned by ingesting the contaminated vegetation and water.
- As a result of the contamination, the plaintiffs' land became unfit for raising livestock and deteriorated from lack of use.
- During the period in question, the defendant's plant emitted an average of 800 pounds of fluorides daily, some of which settled on the plaintiffs' land.
- A fume collection system installed by the defendant in 1950 did not capture all of the fluoride emissions.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed an action for trespass against the defendant in an Oregon trial court, seeking damages for loss of use of their land.
- Defendant contended that the plaintiffs' claim was properly one for nuisance, not trespass, and was therefore subject to a two-year statute of limitations.
- The trial court accepted the plaintiffs' theory of trespass.
- After both parties moved for a directed verdict, the trial court found for the plaintiffs, awarding them $91,500 in damages.
- The trial court denied the plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages.
- The defendant (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Oregon.
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 an aluminum reduction plant's emission of invisible fluoride particulates that settle on and damage another's land constitute a trespass, rather than a nuisance, for the purpose of applying the statute of limitations?
Opinions:
Majority - O'Connell, J.
Yes. The intentional deposit of invisible fluoride particulates onto another's land constitutes a trespass. The historical requirement that a trespass involve a direct invasion by a tangible, visible object is outdated. In the modern scientific era, an intrusion's character should be defined by its energy or force rather than its size. The court reasoned that an invasion by unseen molecular or atomic particles can be just as real and forceful as an invasion by a larger object. While nuisance protects the interest in the use and enjoyment of land, trespass protects the foundational interest in exclusive possession. The settling of the fluoride particulates was a physical intrusion that directly violated the plaintiffs' right to exclusive possession of their land, thereby constituting a trespass. This classification is critical as it allows for the application of the longer six-year statute of limitations for trespass rather than the two-year statute for nuisance.
Concurring - McAllister, C.J.
Yes. The author agrees with the majority's conclusion that the defendant's actions constituted a trespass and that the judgment should be affirmed. However, the author dissents from the portion of the majority opinion that attempts to reconcile this holding with the court's prior decision in Amphitheaters, Inc. v. Portland Meadows, which dealt with the intrusion of light rays.
Analysis:
This decision significantly modernizes the tort of trespass by expanding its definition to include invasions by microscopic or invisible particles. By shifting the focus from the size of the invading object to the 'energy or force' of the intrusion, the court closed a potential loophole for industrial polluters whose emissions are not visible to the naked eye. This ruling blurs the traditional line between trespass and nuisance, allowing plaintiffs to frame certain pollution cases as trespass to gain advantages, such as a longer statute of limitations. The case sets a precedent for applying trespass law to a new range of environmental torts involving chemical, particulate, or even energy-based intrusions.
Unlock the full brief for Martin v. Reynolds Metals Co.