## Facts

- Orchard View Farms, Inc., operated fruit orchards near The Dalles, Oregon.
- Martin Marietta Aluminum, Inc., owned and operated an aluminum reduction plant in The Dalles that emitted fluoride compounds during operation.
- Orchard View sued for trespass, alleging fluoride emissions damaged its orchards during March 31, 1965 to March 31, 1971.
- A jury awarded $103,655 compensatory damages and $250,000 punitive damages.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed compensatory damages but reversed punitive damages and remanded for retrial limited to punitive damages because certain earlier-event evidence was insufficiently tied to the claim period.
- On remand, the district court retried punitive damages based on evidence linked to the 1965–71 period.
- During the claim period, the company knew fluoride emissions from aluminum plants could injure fruit trees and had prior experience with similar claims from other growers.
- Evidence showed the company had feasible options to reduce harmful emissions (including taller or high-velocity stacks and improved controls) but did not implement adequate measures during the relevant period.
- The company sponsored calcium chloride spraying as a mitigation step, which the court found did not substitute for effective emission control.
- The company did not voluntarily compensate Orchard View and did not cooperate in legitimate scientific inquiry into the extent and cause of Orchard View’s damage, despite having compensated other growers in prior disputes.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Oregon law, the company’s conduct during the 1965–71 period amounted to wanton misconduct or reckless indifference sufficient to support punitive damages in a pollution-based trespass action.
2. Whether the punitive-damages determination could be made on remand using evidence properly connected to the claim period, consistent with the appellate mandate.

## Decision

- The district court awarded punitive damages to Orchard View on remand.
- The court found the company knew of a high risk of harm from fluoride emissions yet continued operations without adequate emission controls.
- The court concluded that limited mitigation (calcium chloride spraying) did not excuse the failure to implement effective prevention measures.
- The court determined the punitive award was supported by evidence tied to the 1965–71 period and did not rest on improperly remote events.

## Legal Principles

- Under Oregon law, punitive damages require more than negligence; they are permitted for wanton misconduct or reckless indifference to the rights of others.
- Reckless indifference may be shown where a defendant knows of a substantial risk of harm to neighboring property and continues the harmful conduct without taking available, reasonable preventative measures.
- In pollution/trespass cases, a defendant’s prior knowledge from similar incidents and the feasibility of control measures are relevant to whether conduct is sufficiently aggravated to justify punitive damages.
- On remand after reversal for evidentiary error, punitive damages must be supported by admissible evidence adequately connected to the relevant claim period and the defendant’s conduct and policies during that period.

## Conclusion

The court imposed punitive damages because the plant operator, aware that its fluoride emissions could damage nearby orchards and able to take effective preventative steps, continued the harmful emissions and responded inadequately, supporting a finding of reckless disregard under Oregon punitive-damages doctrine.


Orchard View Farms, Inc. v. Martin Marietta Aluminum, Inc., 500 F. Supp. 984 (D. Or. 1980)