Summary Of The Court Case Of Gold Kist Inc.

The plaintiff in this case is Douglas Faulk and the defendant is Gold Kist, Inc. The plaintiff, Douglas Faulk owned a pond in which he had stocked approximately 2000 catfish. The pond was supplied by rainwater and runoff from the adjacent land, which included land that Gold Kist, Inc. operated a fertilizer plant on. After realizing a thick layer of scum had filled his pond, and that all of his catfish had died, Faulk sued Gold Kist, Inc. claiming they had committed an alleged trespass to his property, with regard to runoff fertilizer from their bulk plant, which he claims to have created the layer of scum on his pond, and killed all of his fish. The defendant, Gold Kist, Inc., claimed that their company had not committed any such trespass to Faulk’s land. The defendant did not intentionally commit a trespass onto the land, as they were always careful to operate the plant avoiding fertilizer spills, but quickly and thoroughly cleaning any that did occur. The defendant also claimed that the death of Faulk’s fish was not due to runoff via a drainage ditch from his plant, but could have been several other

Trespass is defined as, “the unlawful or unauthorized entry upon another person’s land that interferes with that person’s exclusive possession or ownership of the land. Under the same concept of law, with regard to trespass to land, the defendant was able to deny any such trespass to land because there was no evidence to prove that Gold Kist, Inc. intentionally nor carelessly caused any fertilizer to enter Faulk’s land. The trial judge settled in favor of Gold Kist, Inc., and after appeal by Faulk, the appellate court concluded, “Because the evidence of an intrusion that was “real and substantial” was disputed, Faulk has failed to convince us that the trail court’s judgment based on its findings of fact must be set aside. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial