In Adkins v. Thomas Solvent Co. 440 Mich. 293 (1992), the court denied an award of stigma damages when the property was not contaminated by a hazardous substance. In order to see if stigma damages can be awarded, plaintiff’s usually have to establish that defendant engaged in an environmental tort, which in this case is nuisance. Once nuisance is established by the plaintiff’s proving that there was damage to their property, then the plaintiffs can seek to recover stigma damages. In Adkins, the trial court had dismissed the plaintiff’s claims that they had no recovery under Michigan law. Even though the Court of Appeal’s reversed this decision, the Court of Appeal’s decision was later reversed back to the trial court’s decision, stating that the plaintiffs did not present evidence toward the contamination of their property by way of the defendants. The question presented in this case was whether plaintiffs could claim a right to damages under the tort of nuisance due …show more content…
Even though the Court of Appeals had held that “a physical intrusion or physical effect is not required to sustain a claim for nuisance” , the court believed that the trial court did not err in dismissing the plaintiff’s claims. First it needs to be established what the elements of a private nuisance are. “A private nuisance is a nontrespassory invasion of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of land.” Private nuisance is basically an interference on someone’s land by someone else. The interference deals with the use and enjoyment of the land, its physical condition, and threat of future injury. Overall, this is to protect the owner’s property. After establishing that there is a nuisance, the court looked at whether the plaintiff could recover stigma