This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Fluor (Ds) are involved with the operation of a lead smelter. It emits large quantities of lead into the local environment. This is alleged to result in higher levels of lead and other toxins than would otherwise be present in and around the area. There is no dispute that lead is toxic and that children are generally more susceptible to injury from lead poisoning than are adults. There is also no dispute that injuries from lead exposure are often latent injuries and years may pass before symptoms are detected. P filed a petition asserting that she is a member of a class of children in and around the area who has been exposed to toxic emissions from the smelter. P claimed negligence, strict liability, private nuisance, and trespass as theories of liability and sought compensatory damages to establish a medical monitoring program for class members. The proposed class consists of over 200 children. P sought class certification under Rule 52.08(b)(3). The circuit court found that 'individual issues will necessarily predominate over common issues. The court denied the motion for class certification. P appealed and argues that the circuit court erred because its analysis assumed incorrectly that a present physical injury is a necessary element of a medical monitoring claim.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.