WILLIAMS V. MONSANTO COMPANY 856 S.W.2d 338 (1993) CASE BRIEF

WILLIAMS V. MONSANTO COMPANY

856 S.W.2d 338 (1993)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Williams (P) appealed a judgment which directed a verdict in favor of Monsanto (D) on P's trespass claim, denied P's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict to P on his nuisance claim, and failed to allow evidence by P of his physical and mental suffering allegedly resulting from the loss of his business.

FACTS: P owned and operated an automobile repair business on land abutting property owned by D upon which it operates a chemical plant. Particulate from D's plant fell on occasion on the premises used by P 'dusting' his and his customers' vehicles. P contends that the particulate, sodium tripolyphoshate (STP), caused pitting of the painting of customers' cars and resulted in loss of business. D's evidence was that STP is a food additive used in a variety of products such as pasta and canned hams and does not cause pitting of automobile paint. D expended approximately $500,000 attempting to identify the source of the particulate leak and to remedy it. D was extremely cooperative and involved in attempting to correct the problem. Some of the complaints made against D turned out to involve emissions from a neighboring plant, Carondolet Coke Plant. Two witnesses with business in close proximity to P testified that they had no problems in operating their businesses in the area and had never observed or had complaints by customers of damage to their automobiles caused by white dust from D. P contends that the loss of customers caused him to have to close his business with a resulting loss of income. There was considerable evidence that P's business was a losing proposition before any problems with D and that none of his major customers reduced their business during the period in question, although he had lost the customer providing about 50% of his revenue in the year before the emissions began for reasons unrelated to the emissions. P sued D on fourteen counts including among others trespass, nuisance, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and consortium claims by Ps wife. The court limited the trial to trespass and nuisance and refused to instruct on the trespass issue thereby effectively directing a verdict on that claim. The jury unanimously found for D on the nuisance claim. P appealed challenging the court's action in directing a verdict on the trespass claim, in failing to grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict to plaintiff on the nuisance claim, and in failing to allow evidence by P of his physical and mental suffering allegedly resulting from the loss of his business.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner