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

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

D used its 242 acres of rural land as a landfill for by-products from the production of chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides. D neither conducted hydrogeological studies to assess the soil composition underneath the site, the water flow direction, and the location of the local water aquifer, nor drilled a monitoring well to detect and record any ongoing contamination. From October, 1964 to June, 1973, D deposited a total of 300,000 55-gallon steel drums containing ultrahazardous liquid chemical waste and hundreds of fiberboard cartons containing ultrahazardous dry chemical waste in the landfill. Shortly after D's disposal operations began local residents and county, state, and federal authorities became concerned about the environmental impact of D's activities. The United States Geological Survey's (USGS) 1967 report indicated that chlorinated hydrocarbons had migrated down into the subsoil and had contaminated portions of the surface and subsurface environment adjacent to the disposal site. The USGS concluded that both the local and contiguous groundwater were in danger of contamination. In 1972, the state filed an administrative action to close the landfill because the chlorinated hydrocarbons buried at the site allegedly were contaminating the subsurface waters irreparably. In 1976, three years after the state permanently closed the landfill disposal site, the USGS updated the 1967 USGS report. The 1978 report found that the water table of the local aquifer was highly contaminated. Residents' wells, which were previously presumed safe from contamination, were now potentially polluted. Further well water sampling tests revealed the presence of certain chlorinated hydrocarbons in numerous wells. The users of these wells, and all wells within 1,000 acres around the landfill site, were advised to stop using them for any purpose. In 1978, forty-two Ps sued D on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated for damages and injunctive relief. The complaint sought $1.5 billion in compensatory damages and $1 billion in punitive damages. After a bench trial of five representative claims, the district court found D liable in strict liability, common law negligence, trespass, and nuisance. The district court awarded the five individuals compensatory damages totalling $ 5,273,492.50 for their respective injuries. The district court also awarded $ 7,500,000 in punitive damages to the class as a whole. D appealed. D, in part, argues the district court erred in finding that Ps were exposed to D's chemicals and that there was a causal connection between their exposure, if any, and their resultant injuries. D asserts the district court improperly awarded compensatory damages for alleged injuries. D argues that the various types of injuries identified by the district court were based upon impermissibly speculative and conjectural evidence.

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

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

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