ABSTRACT
The extensive regulation of air quality under the Federal Clean Air Act has tended to divert attention from the common law theories continuing to provide a basis for legal action to prevent air pollution. Some of the cases and material set forth in the prior chapter provide good illustrations: The nuisance doctrine was applied in Hulbert v. California Portland Cement, supra, where the court enjoined the air pollution causing damage to plaintiff's orange groves. In Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co., supra, the court found that emission from defendant's cement plant constituted a nuisance and proposed damages rather than a permanent injunction as a more appropriate remedy. The negligence theory was applied in Reynolds Metals v. Yturbide, supra, where Reynolds Metals was held liable for injuries resulting from its negligence in permitting fluorides to be emitted from its plant. The trespass theory was applied in Reynolds Metals v. Martin, supra, where the defendant was held to be liable for damages caused by fluoride particles emitted from its plant. The ultrahazardous activities theory was applied in Luthringer v. Moore, supra, where defendant was held liable for injuries resulting from the inhalation of hydrocyanic acid discharged into the air by defendant in the process of rodent extermination regardless of fault.
