Southwest Weather Research Inc. v. Rounsaville

320 S.W.2d 211 (1958)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D owned and operated planes that performed cloud seeding. P sued D to stop seeding clouds over his property as he claimed it lessened rainfall and changed the weather. D testified through the president of the company that the operation was attempting to suppress the hail. D admitted that he was trying to and was changing weather conditions, but denied that he depleted any potential or active precipitation, and maintained that, on the contrary, his operation tended to increase precipitation. The experts did not agree in their testimony. Witnesses Quate and Moyer, after qualifying, explained the processes of cloud formation and rainmaking, and stated positively that seeding clouds, as was done here, with silver iodide or salt brine or both, could not depreciate, deplete or destroy the rain potential of a cloud that was likely to produce rain. They did testify that unimportant clouds with no rain potential could be dissipated. Battle testified that in his opinion overseeding of potential rain clouds could diminish or destroy their rain-making power. R. T. Beaumont maintains that a two-year cloud seeding program in southern Oregon decreased, instead of increasing, the annual precipitation in the area under study. The California Law Review, states as follows: 'Scientific and mathematical evaluation of the results of cloud seeding is in its experimental infancy.', citing as authority therefor several articles and publications. It is therefore clear that there was sharp divergence in the expert testimony presented to the trial court. Ps testified without detailing the individual testimony of each witness, they all generally agreed that they would be observing a potential rain cloud or thunderhead which they were confident was going to produce rain on their property, when D’s' plane or planes would show up, and the potential rain was dissipated leaving only a fuzzy or wispy type of mist. The trial court agreed with Ps and issued an injunction. D appealed. Ds claim they had every right to do what they were doing in order to protect their crops from hail and that the facts or credible evidence did not justify the issuance of the injunction. Ds maintain that Ps have no right to prevent them from flying over Ps' lands; that no one owns the clouds unless it be the State, and that the trial court was without legal right to restrain Ds from pursuing a lawful occupation; also, that the injunction is too broad in its terms.