Williams v. Monsanto Co.

Robert Williams Sr. (plaintiff) owned and operated an automobile-repair business on land that abutted property owned by Monsanto Co. (defendant). Monsanto operated a chemical plant that, for several months in 1984, occasionally emitted particulate that fell on Williams’s premises, “dusting” the vehicles there. Williams maintained that the particulate caused pitting of paint on his customers’ cars, harming Williams’s business. Monsanto offered to have dusted cars washed at Monsanto’s expense. The neighborhood was largely industrial, and no other business claimed to have experienced problems with paint pitting or business operations. Monsanto expended half a million dollars to identify and remedy the particulate leak, fully cooperating with government officials. Williams sued Monsanto, asserting claims of nuisance and trespass, among others, and seeking to recover his loss of income due to loss of customers allegedly caused by Monsanto. Monsanto presented evidence that the particulate did not cause pitting of automobile paint and that Williams’s business had been in financial trouble before any emissions. At the close of evidence, the trial court decided that Williams could not prevail on his trespass claim as a matter of law and submitted the nuisance claim to the jury. The jury returned a verdict for Monsanto. Williams appealed, arguing that the court erroneously decided the trespass claim and should have directed a verdict in Williams’s favor on nuisance.