Opinion ID: 1887604
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trespass, Private Nuisance and Public Nuisance Claims

Text: ¶ 18. The Leaf River Defendants also sought summary judgment on the Deakle Group's property damage claims resulting from alleged trespass, private nuisance and public nuisance. Where a claimant alleges trespass as a result of chemical discharges, the burden lies with the claimant to prove an actual physical invasion of the subject property. Simmons, 697 So.2d at 1085-86. The Leaf River Defendants claimed in their motion for summary judgment that the Deakle Group lacked legally sufficient proof of exposure to dioxins and that they failed to prove that any dioxins contained in the river were attributable to the Leaf River Mill. In response to the motion for summary judgment the Deakle Group offered photographs and video tapes depicting color changes in the water, and stains on sandbars, allegedly resulting from the discharged effluent. This same evidence was rejected in Simmons, where this Court held that: Simmons' proof was inadequate to support a jury verdict in his favor for nuisance.... This proof offered by Simmons closely parallels that offered by the plaintiff in Ferguson. Simmons, like Ferguson, presented no evidence of dioxin tests conducted on his property or on his person, and this Court in Ferguson held the proof absent such evidence to be insufficient to support a recovery under either a public or private nuisance theory. Id. at 665. . . . With regard to the trespass cause of action, the deficiency in Simmons' proof is even clearer than with regard to the nuisance action, given that trespass requires an actual physical invasion of the plaintiffs property. Blue v. Charles F. Hayes & Associates, Inc., 215 So.2d 426 (Miss.1968). This Court did not have the opportunity to address the issue of trespass in Ferguson, given that the jury in said case had held the defendants to not be liable for trespass. It is clear, however, this Court's reluctance to allow recovery for nuisance absent a showing that dioxin was present on Ferguson's property applies even more to a trespass cause of action than to a nuisance cause of action which requires no actual physical invasion. Simmons, 697 So.2d at 1085. ¶ 19. The Deakle Group argues that it is an incorrect rule of law that they must come forward with scientific evidence of exposure, in the form of blood tests or soil tests; circumstantial evidence is sufficient. In support of this argument the Deakle Group cites Slaughter v. Southern Talc Co., 949 F.2d 167 (5th Cir.1991). It was held in Slaughter, as follows: The most frequently used test for causation in asbestos cases is the frequency-regularity-proximity test announced in Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 782 F.2d 1156 (4th Cir.1986). Lohrmann held that a motion for summary judgment cannot be defeated merely by alleging work at a shipyard in which defendants' asbestos products had somewhere been present. Rather, there must be proof of frequent and regular work in an area of the shipyard in proximity to some specific item of defendants' asbestos-containing product. The Lohrmann court found that exposure to an asbestos-filled pipe cover on ten to fifteen occasions did not satisfy this test. We agree that Lohrmann recites the appropriate test for a minimum showing of producing cause in asbestos cases. A plaintiff must prove that, more probably than not, he actually breathed asbestos fibers originating in defendants' products. This proof can be made by showing that plaintiff frequently and regularly worked in proximity to defendants' products such that it is likely that plaintiffs inhaled defendants' asbestos fibers. Id. at 171. The Slaughter court held that proximity could be proved by circumstantial evidence. Id. at 171-72. Slaughter, although persuasive, is not binding on this Court. ¶ 20. Even if this Court were to adopt the holding in Slaughter, the Deakle Group misconstrues its holdings. The frequency-regularity-proximity test is made specifically applicable to cases involving asbestos-related injuries. Also the rule providing for the use of circumstantial evidence to prove proximity does not decrease the claimant's burden to prove triable issues of fact on a motion for summary judgment. The Slaughter court also looked first to scientific evidence to determine whether the products produced by the defendants, and to which the claimants had proximity, actually contained asbestos. Id. at 170. Here the Leaf River Defendants offered uncontradicted evidence, through the affidavit of Professor Rappe, that the mill was not the source of any dioxin found in the area, while the Deakle Group failed to offer any scientific evidence that dioxin was on their properties. Therefore, in so far as the Deakle Group claims that it is entitled to recover under the theories of trespass, private and public nuisance for the presence of the chemical dioxin in the Rivers or on their properties, the trial court did not err in granting the Leaf River Defendants summary judgment on these issues. ¶ 21. The Deakle Group does not merely claim that they are entitled to recover for the alleged discharge of dioxin, but that they are entitled to recover for a nuisance because the mill's effluent caused discoloration to the river and deposits on the sandbars. The trial court relying on Ferguson held that the Deakle Group must present proof of the presence of dioxin in order to recover for nuisance. This is not what Ferguson held. ¶ 22. Instead, this Court recognized in Ferguson that a plaintiff may recover under a claim of private nuisance for discoloration of the water, river banks, and sand bars. [T]he riparian proprietor [has] a right to use the water in question in its natural purity, or in the condition in which he has been in the habit of using it, and that: a riparian owner sustaining substantial injuries by reason of such an invasion of his rights may maintain an action without regard to the motive which prompts the invasion, and the pollution of a stream to the injury of a lower proprietor will not be justified by the importance of the business of the upper proprietor to either the public or the wrongdoer, or by the fact that the latter is conducting such business with care and in the only known practicable mode. Ferguson, 662 So.2d at 664 (quoting Southland Co. v. Aaron, 221 Miss. 59, 72, 72 So.2d 161, 165 (1954) (quoting 56 Am.Jur. Waters § 405 (1947))). Ferguson held that the private nuisance claim failed, not because the plaintiffs did not offer scientific evidence of dioxin on their properties, but because the plaintiffs failed to prove that the discoloration of the river and the sandbars affected their properties. Ferguson, 662 So.2d at 664. ¶ 23. Here the Deakle Group offered pictures depicting the discoloration to the river and black deposits on sandbars, along with the affidavit of the paralegal who took the pictures. The Deakle Group also argued that they were in close proximity to the mill, unlike the Ferguson plaintiffs who were 125 miles downstream from the mill. The Deakle Group did not, however, offer legally sufficient proof that the alleged discoloration effected the River adjacent to property belonging to any of the members of the Deakle Group, or that there were black deposits on sandbars on or near property belonging to members of the Deakle Group. [1] Therefore, just as in Ferguson, the Deakle Group failed to prove that the discoloration of the river and the sandbars affected their properties. ¶ 24. As to the claim for a public nuisance the trial court held that the Deakle Group had failed to offer proof that they suffered any harm different from that of the general public. A complainant seeking to recover for a public nuisance must have sustained harm different in kind, rather than in degree, than that suffered by the public at large. Comet Delta, Inc. v. Pate Stevedore Co. of Pascagoula, Inc., 521 So.2d 857, 861 (Miss.1988). Interference with the condition of land is sufficient to constitute harm different than that suffered by the public at large. Id. However, as discussed supra, the Deakle Group has failed to present legally sufficient evidence that their property has been effected by any discoloration. Thus, there was not sufficient evidence of a individualized harm, so as to forestall the dismissal of the public nuisance claim on a motion for summary judgment.