Chase v. Henderson

Oregon Supreme Court

Chase v. Henderson

509 P.2d 1188, 265 Or. 431, 1973 Ore. LEXIS 440

CourtOregon Supreme Court

DecidedMay 17, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 509 P.2d 1188 (Chase v. Henderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chase v. Henderson, 509 P.2d 1188, 265 Or. 431, 1973 Ore. LEXIS 440 (Or. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

DENECKE, J.

Plaintiffs recovered a judgment for damages'- to their annual pole bean crop allegedly caused by-the drift of a chemical spray which defendant applied from a helicopter to a nearby pasture. Defendant appeals.

The case was submitted to the jury upon the theory of unintentional, non-negligent trespass. In Loe v. Lenhardt, 227 Or 242, 362 P2d 312 (1961); we specifically held that the spraying of chemicals was áh ultrahazardous activity and the sprayer was liable if the, chemicals went on another’s land and caused damage regardless of the absence of intention or negligence. Defendant’s attempts to distinguish Loe v. Lenhardt, supra (227 Or 242), are unsuccessful.

Being of the opinion that ORS 105.815 applied, the trial court doubled the actual damages found by the jury. Defendant contends that statute is not applicable.

After the trial in this case we decided Meyer v. Harvey Aluminum, Inc., 263 Or 487, 501 P2d 795, 799-800 (1972). We held ORS 105.810, the companion statute to ORS 105.815, did not permit the trebling of damages. In that case the plaintiffs’ fruit crop'and trees were allegedly damaged by emissions from the defendant’s aluminum plant. The same considerations which caused us to conclude that treble damages were not allowable in such a ease cause us to conclude that double damages are not allowable in this case. -. '

Modified with instructions to enter judgment in the amount awarded by the jury.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DENECKE, J.

Plaintiffs recovered a judgment for damages'- to their annual pole bean crop allegedly caused by-the drift of a chemical spray which defendant applied from a helicopter to a nearby pasture. Defendant appeals.

The case was submitted to the jury upon the theory of unintentional, non-negligent trespass. In Loe v. Lenhardt, 227 Or 242, 362 P2d 312 (1961); we specifically held that the spraying of chemicals was áh ultrahazardous activity and the sprayer was liable if the, chemicals went on another’s land and caused damage regardless of the absence of intention or negligence. Defendant’s attempts to distinguish Loe v. Lenhardt, supra (227 Or 242), are unsuccessful.

Being of the opinion that ORS 105.815 applied, the trial court doubled the actual damages found by the jury. Defendant contends that statute is not applicable.

After the trial in this case we decided Meyer v. Harvey Aluminum, Inc., 263 Or 487, 501 P2d 795, 799-800 (1972). We held ORS 105.810, the companion statute to ORS 105.815, did not permit the trebling of damages. In that case the plaintiffs’ fruit crop'and trees were allegedly damaged by emissions from the defendant’s aluminum plant. The same considerations which caused us to conclude that treble damages were not allowable in such a ease cause us to conclude that double damages are not allowable in this case. -. '

Modified with instructions to enter judgment in the amount awarded by the jury.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

509 P.2d 1188, 265 Or. 431, 1973 Ore. LEXIS 440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chase-v-henderson-or-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack