Lee 1

Larissa Lee
Professor Windsor
ESP161 (6:10pm)
13 April 2019
Case Brief #1
Citations

 Leaf River Forest Products, Inc. v. Ferguson, 662 So.2d 648 (1995).
Facts
The plaintiffs are the Fergusons, a married couple living along the Pascagoula River which is 125
miles downstream from Leaf River. They filed a complaint against the defendants, Leaf River
Forest Products, Inc., for negligence, nuisance, trespass, and strict liability. The previously
mentioned complaint was filed on the basis of dioxins, a byproduct of the pulp dumped by the
paper mill into Leaf River, having been found to be toxic to fish in the area by the Department
of Wildlife and Fisheries. The pulp that was injected into the river traveled downstream onto
the Fergusons’ property and affected both their lifestyles and their overall enjoyment of their
land. The lower courts found the defendants not guilty on the accounts of trespass however,
they were found guilty of nuisance, emotional distress, and punitive damages to the Fergusons’
property. This resulted $200,000 in compensation for nuisance and emotional distress as well
as an additional $3,000,000 in compensation for punitive damages.
Issues

 Was the emotional distress asserted by plaintiffs recoverable? If so, was significant
evidence provided to demonstrate fear was the cause of the plaintiff’s distress?
 Was the discoloration and foul odor sufficient evidence to prove dioxin presence and
the altercation of rivers downstream on the plaintiff’s property? If so, was there
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that dioxin; the byproduct of paper pulp; was the
caused by the defendant?
Holding

 Majority’s ruling was contradictory to the laws of the state.

 No, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate emotional distress was caused by
the defendants.
 No, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the dioxin injected into the
river from the defendant caused the discoloration and foul odor on the plaintiff’s river
property.
Reasoning
 Lee 2

 No medical records or testing was provided to prove existence of emotional distress of

the Fergusons.
 Ferguson’s property was not tested for the presence of dioxin, therefore they were
unable to prove that damage exist.
 In the history of the court, emotional distress based on future fear of an illness or
disease is not reasonable. There must be substantial proof to demonstrate that
exposure of the toxin and medical record to establish future contraction of illness or
disease is probable.
Dissent
Justice McRae disagreed with the majority ruling because physical impacts do not need to be
proven for negligence and the emotional distress from the fears of the plaintiffs were
incorrectly identified. He believed that even though the Fergusons did not provide substantial
evidence to prove dioxin was present on their property, there was still evidence that satisfied
all elements of private nuisance. McRae indicated that the Fergusons’ emotional distress
originated from the significant deaths of fish in the river, caused by toxic pollutants, which in
turn led to the discoloration of the water and unpleasant smells. These effects, rather than the
possibility of contacting an illness in the future, were what took the largest toll on the family.
Analysis
I believe the upper level court’s decision was justified due the lack of evidence provided by the
Fergusons. It was reasonable of the upper level courts to reverse the verdict of the case
because testing was not performed on behalf of the Fergusons. Therefore, there was no
evidence proving that the negligence and emotional distress were caused by the defendants. I
feel that the lower court’s decision was based on emotional response rather than evidence
pertaining to the case.