## Facts

- Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company and a subsidiary operated the Empire Mine near Palmer, Michigan, running continuously and using blasting several times per week.
- Homeowners living near the mine alleged that mine operations produced substantial airborne dust, noise, and vibrations affecting their properties.
- Plaintiffs alleged blasting caused tremors and vibrations, and dust accumulated inside and outside their homes, allegedly requiring frequent cleaning, repainting, and repairs (including cracked masonry and damaged plumbing or sewer lines).
- Plaintiffs sued asserting trespass and nuisance; the case was submitted to the jury primarily on a trespass theory.
- The trial court instructed the jury that “intrusion” for trespass could include intangible phenomena such as dust, noise, and vibrations.
- A jury awarded trespass damages to 52 of 55 plaintiffs based on invasions by dust, noise, and vibrations.
- Defendants appealed, challenging whether Michigan recognizes trespass based on these intangible intrusions.

## Issues

1. Whether Michigan recognizes a trespass cause of action based on intangible invasions such as airborne dust, noise, and vibrations.
2. How Michigan law distinguishes trespass (exclusive possession) from nuisance (use and enjoyment) for indirect or intangible interferences with land.

## Decision

- The court reversed the trespass judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
- It held that Michigan trespass law does not cover airborne particulate, noise, or vibrations.
- It concluded that claims alleging harm from such irritants ordinarily sound in nuisance, not trespass.
- It determined the trial court erred by instructing the jury that intangible agents could constitute a trespassory intrusion.

## Legal Principles

- Trespass protects the interest in exclusive possession; nuisance protects the interest in use and enjoyment.
- In Michigan, trespass to land requires proof of an unauthorized direct or immediate intrusion of a physical, tangible object onto land the plaintiff has the right to possess.
- Once a direct, tangible intrusion is proved, trespass is established and the plaintiff is presumptively entitled to at least nominal damages.
- Interference by intangibles such as noise, vibrations, dust, smoke, soot, or fumes is generally analyzed under nuisance.
- For nuisance, the plaintiff must prove unreasonable interference resulting in significant harm and must prove damages; damages are not presumed.

## Conclusion

The court rejected trespass liability for dust, noise, and vibrations, reaffirming that Michigan confines trespass to direct, tangible physical intrusions and treats intangible interferences with property as nuisance claims requiring proof of unreasonable interference, significant harm, and damages.


Adams v. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co., 237 Mich. App. 51, 602 N.W.2d 215 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999)