In Smith v. Carbide & Chems. Corp., 226 S.W.3d 52 (Ky. 2007), the Kentucky Supreme Court responded to two certified questions from the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on matters of state tort law concerning intentional trespass. The Supreme Court held that proof of actual harm is not required to state a claim for an intentional trespass, and that plaintiffs alleging such a claim can recover damages for diminution in their property values. However, to recover such damages, plaintiffs must also prove that their property has suffered some degree of actual injury.

Ronald W. Eades, Professor of Law at the Louis D. Brandeis School of Law at the University of Louisville, discusses the Smith evidentiary rulings and provides related practice tips in this commentary.

Subscribers can access the complete commentary on lexis.com. Additional fees may be incurred. (approx. 5 pages)
 
Non-subscribers may purchase the complete commentary on LexisNexis Store.