Trespass cases involving deposit of lead or other particulate matter over plaintiff's property

Borland v. Sanders Lead Co., 369 So.2d 523, 529-30 (Ala. 1979) (permitting recovery for trespass upon intrusion of lead and sulfoxide particulates). https://law.justia.com/cases/alabama/supreme-court/1979/369-so-2d-523-1.html See also, Maryland Heights Leasing, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt, Inc., 706 S.W.2d 218, 225-26 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985) (radioactive emissions may support trespass claim if radioactive material has been deposited on the property); Martin v. Reynolds Metals Co., 342 P.2d 790, 794 (Or. 1959) (operation by Defendants of an aluminum reduction plant caused certain fluoride compounds in the form of gases and particulates, invisible to the naked eye, to become airborne and settle on Plaintiffs' property, rendering it unfit for raising livestock. sufficient for recovery under trespass claim). The Borland Court (Ala. Sup. Ct) cited Restatement, Second, Torts, § 158, and particularly emphasized a portion of the Comments under this section, which recites:

"`In order that there may be a trespass under the rule stated in this Section, it is not necessary that the foreign matter should be thrown directly and immediately upon the other's land. It is enough that an act is done with knowledge that it will to a substantial certainty result in entry of foreign matters.'" The Colorado Supreme Court agreed in Hoery v. United States, 64 P.3d 214, 217 (Colo. 2003): [Plaintiffs] do not need to allege that Defendants intended to cause the particular hazards identified in the Complaint. Rather, to succeed on the trespass claim, the ​[​Plaintiffs] must show that the ​[​Defendants] intended to perform the acts that caused the harmful intrusion, and that they knew the intrusion​ would likely result.