Martin v. Reynolds Metals Co.
Citation: 221 Or. 86 (1959)
Facts
Reynolds Metals operated an aluminum reduction plant that emitted fluoride gases and particles that settled on neighboring farms, damaging the plaintiffs’ cattle and land. Plaintiffs brought a trespass action. Reynolds argued that trespass requires physical invasion by visible, tangible matter and that fluoride gases/particles did not qualify.
Issue
Can airborne invisible particles or gases constitute a trespass if they land on another’s property and cause harm?
Holding
Yes. An invasion of a party’s possessory interest in land by particles — even microscopic ones — can constitute trespass if the particles cause actual harm. It is not necessary that the invading object be large or visible; any physical entry of foreign matter can be a trespass if it interferes with the possessory rights in the land.
Rule
Trespass by invisible particles: Trespass does not require a tangible, visible entry by a person or large object. If invisible particles (gases, microscopic matter) enter another’s land and cause damage, this constitutes a trespass to land. The invasion of the “airspace” and surface of the land by any physical particle, however small, satisfies the element of physical entry.
Significance
- Extended trespass doctrine to pollution and airborne contamination cases
- Allows trespass to be pursued alongside nuisance for pollution: trespass provides actual damages without needing to prove “unreasonableness” (required for private nuisance); nuisance allows injunctive relief
- Most jurisdictions follow this rule — trespass by particle is actionable if it causes harm
- The modern trend: some courts distinguish, requiring actual, tangible physical harm for trespass and relegating intangible or indirect interference to nuisance