Summary

John Kilkenny Renken v. Harvey Aluminum Inc.…

The evidence clearly shows that the year 1960, the one in which plaintiffs claim their principal cherry damage, was an exceptionally light cherry crop, not only in Wasco County, but throughout the States of Oregon and Washington. I am convinced that the light cherry crop in 1960 was due to factors other than the fluorides escaping from the plant of the defendant. However, the evidence is convincing that the deposit of this material on the trees at blossom time creates damage.
Source: Wikisource

John Kilkenny Renken v. Harvey Aluminum Inc.…

No sound reason has been advanced by defendant why hoods, similar to those employed by Reynolds, should not be installed. While it is true that a substantial portion of the gasses and particulates escape at the time when the new aluminum ore is being introduced into the pot or the liquid metal is removed, [p172] I am convinced that such an escape could be prevented by a properly designed hood over the open area.
Source: Wikisource

John Kilkenny Renken v. Harvey Aluminum Inc.…

The essential difference between the cells, or pots, used in the Reynolds plant is, insofar as the escape of particulates and gasses is concerned, that Reynold uses a hood, with a controlling air system, which captures most of the stray gasses, affluents and particulates which might escape into the open area around the pots.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature