## Facts

- A pulp mill upstream on the Leaf River began operating in the mid-1980s; wastewater and sludge associated with the mill were later reported to contain dioxin.
- In 1990, state officials imposed a commercial fishing ban and issued fish-consumption advisories for portions of the Leaf and Pascagoula Rivers due to dioxin concerns.
- Thomas and Bonnie Ferguson owned and lived on riverfront property along the Pascagoula River downstream from the mill.
- The Fergusons alleged the mill’s discharges contaminated the river system and caused (1) reduced value of their riverfront property and (2) emotional distress primarily from fear of developing cancer or other illness in the future.
- The Fergusons pursued nuisance and emotional-distress theories; expert testimony conflicted on the extent, source, and significance of contamination and risk.
- The Fergusons did not test their bodies or their property for dioxin.
- The jury found for the defendants on trespass and rejected a co-plaintiff’s claims, but found for the Fergusons on nuisance and emotional distress, awarding compensatory damages and $3,000,000 in punitive damages.

## Issues

1. Whether emotional-distress damages based on fear of future illness from alleged toxic exposure are recoverable without manifested physical injury or competent scientific/medical proof of substantial exposure supplying a rational basis for the fear.
2. Whether nuisance damages may be awarded based on alleged contamination and stigma-related property devaluation absent proof of actual invasion or concrete interference with the plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their specific property.
3. Whether punitive damages may stand when the underlying tort claims are unsupported by legally sufficient evidence.

## Decision

- The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the judgment for the Fergusons and rendered judgment for the defendants.
- The court held the evidence was legally insufficient to support emotional-distress damages predicated on fear of future illness where there was no manifested illness and no scientifically grounded proof of substantial exposure creating a rational basis for the fear.
- The court held the evidence was legally insufficient to support nuisance liability where proof of invasion or specific, material interference with the Fergusons’ property was minimal and the claimed injury largely rested on generalized contamination concerns and stigma.
- Because the compensatory claims failed as a matter of law, the punitive-damages award was vacated.

## Legal Principles

- Emotional distress based on fear of future disease from alleged toxic exposure is not recoverable absent (a) manifested physical injury/illness, or (b) proof of substantial exposure supported by competent medical or scientific evidence providing a rational basis for the fear.
- Nuisance requires proof of an actual, substantial invasion of the plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of property (such as physical intrusion by a pollutant or other concrete interference), not merely generalized environmental concern.
- Property-value damages based on stigma or public perception are insufficient without demonstrable invasion or tangible, non-speculative harm to the specific property.
- When evidence is legally insufficient on the underlying tort claims, judgment should be rendered for the defendant and punitive damages cannot stand.

## Conclusion

The court set aside compensatory and punitive awards where riparian plaintiffs alleged downstream contamination but failed to prove manifested injury or substantial, scientifically supported exposure for fear-based emotional distress, and failed to show concrete invasion or material interference with their particular property for nuisance.


Leaf River Forest Prods., Inc. v. Ferguson, 662 So. 2d 648 (Miss. 1995)