Legal Opinion · Dissent

Smith v. Carbide and Chemicals Corp.

Kentucky Supreme Court

Decided June 21, 2007No. 2005-SC-000686-CLPublished

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Justice MINTON.

I respectfully dissent because I believe that Kentucky should join other states in requiring proof of actual harm to sustain a viable action for the intentional trespass of imperceptible particles. This position is aptly expressed in Judge Joseph McKinley’s opinion in this case. See Smith v. Carbide and Chemicals Corp., 298 F.Supp.2d 561 (W.D.Ky.2004). As stated by the Supreme Court of Washington, “[n]o useful purpose would be served by sanctioning actions in trespass by every landowner within a hundred miles of a manufacturing plant. Manufacturers would be…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Bradley v. American Smelting and Refining Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Commonwealth Department of Agriculture v. VinsonKentucky Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. RitchelCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1912
  4. Morgan v. Hightower's Adm'rCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1942
  5. Cannon v. CarrCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1943

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API