Rushing v. Hooper-McDonald, Inc.
Alabama Supreme Court
300 So. 2d 94 (1974)
- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
Burl Rushing (plaintiff), the sublessee of a fishpond, sued Hooper-McDonald, Inc. (defendant), the owner of adjacent land uphill from the fishpond, in trespass for damages resulting from the pollution of the fishpond. Rushing alleged that, on several occasions, Hooper-McDonald dumped asphalt materials on Hooper-McDonald’s land in such a manner that the materials ran downhill into a stream that emptied into the fishpond and contaminated the water and killed the fish. Hooper-McDonald argued that the damage that Rushing complained about was not direct and immediate but rather consequential and indirect, which would require a claim for trespass on the case. The trial court ruled for Hooper-McDonald and found that Rushing’s remedy was in trespass on the case as opposed to trespass.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Heflin, C. J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
