Leaf River Forest Products, Inc. v. Ferguson
Mississippi Supreme Court
662 So. 2d 648 (1995)
- Written by Jennifer Flinn, JD
Facts
Leaf Forest Products, Inc. (defendant) began operating the Leaf River Paper Mill (the mill) on the Leaf River in southern Mississippi in 1984. The mill processed timber to make pulp. A toxic substance, dioxin, was later detected in the wastewater and sludge produced by the mill. In 1990, a commercial fishing ban and consumption advisories were issued for fish caught in the Leaf River and the Pascagoula River, which formed downstream from the Leaf River. In 1991, Thomas and Bonnie Ferguson (plaintiffs), who lived along the Pascagoula River, filed suit, alleging that the mill was a nuisance and that they had suffered emotional distress as a result of the mill’s discharge of dioxin into the river. At trial, conflicting experts testified as to the potential harm to the Fergusons and their property. The Fergusons feared they may become ill in the future as a result of their exposure to dioxin and that the value of their property had decreased. However, it was undisputed that the Fergusons did not test themselves or their property for the presence of dioxin. The jury awarded the Fergusons $10,000 each for their nuisance claim, $90,000 each for their emotional-distress claim, and punitive damages in the amount of $3,000,000, and Leaf Forest Products, Inc., appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pittman, J.)
Dissent (McRae, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
