This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D owns a wood treatment and preservation facility adjacent to P's property. For 64 years, until 1972, D used its facility to treat and preserve wooden railroad ties. P filed a complaint on February 15, 1993, alleging D improperly stored and disposed of chemical waste, which contaminated the groundwater and rendered P's property unmarketable. P has alleged trespass, private nuisance, negligence, negligence per se, and a strict liability cause of action. P alleged that all of its tracts have been trespassed upon by the horizontal migration of contaminants in the groundwater, and that this contamination also constitutes a nuisance. D conducted limited soil and groundwater testing and found some evidence of creosote contamination in one of the tracts. Aside from that tract, the only evidence of physical contamination of them is based on the opinions of P's three experts. P has not done any soil or groundwater testing of the other tracts, and does not intend to conduct such testing. P disputes that such samples are required to prove its claims against D. P claims it is D's duty to investigate, define, and abate its contamination of P’s property.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.