Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 316 views

    Bradley v. American Smelting and Refining Co

    Uploaded by

    ankurpatel96706
    This case involves a property owner (P) who sued a nearby copper smelting company (D) for trespass due to microscopic particles of cadmium and arsenic deposited on P's land from D's smelting emissions. The court found that D intended to emit the particles and knew they would be deposited somewhere, meeting the intent requirement for trespass. However, the court dismissed P's claim because P failed to demonstrate actual substantial damages from the trespass.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bradley v. American Smelting and Refining Co

    Uploaded by

    ankurpatel96706
    316 views2 pages
    This case involves a property owner (P) who sued a nearby copper smelting company (D) for trespass due to microscopic particles of cadmium and arsenic deposited on P's land from D's smelting emissions. The court found that D intended to emit the particles and knew they would be deposited somewhere, meeting the intent requirement for trespass. However, the court dismissed P's claim because P failed to demonstrate actual substantial damages from the trespass.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a property owner (P) who sued a nearby copper smelting company (D) for trespass due to microscopic particles of cadmium and arsenic deposited on P's land from D's smelting emissions. The court found that D intended to emit the particles and knew they would be deposited somewhere, meeting the intent requirement for trespass. However, the court dismissed P's claim because P failed to demonstrate actual substantial damages from the trespass.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    316 views2 pages

    Bradley v. American Smelting and Refining Co

    Uploaded by

    ankurpatel96706
    This case involves a property owner (P) who sued a nearby copper smelting company (D) for trespass due to microscopic particles of cadmium and arsenic deposited on P's land from D's smelting emissions. The court found that D intended to emit the particles and knew they would be deposited somewhere, meeting the intent requirement for trespass. However, the court dismissed P's claim because P failed to demonstrate actual substantial damages from the trespass.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    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.

    You might also like