The plaintiffs accused the defendant of having contaminated their lands with an herbicide that destroyed their trees.

The defendant had hired an aircraft company to spread an herbicide on its fields but due to some piloting mistake, the herbicide was instead spread on the neighbours’ field and it destroyed an important part of their trees and grasslands. The defendant stated that there was no direct link between the herbicide spraying and the destruction of the trees and grassland. He also claimed that he could not be held responsible for the contamination because it was a mistake of the pilot of the company he hired. Thus the aircraft company should be solely responsible.  

The court considered that there were enough evidences showing a clear link between the herbicide spraying and the destructions of the grasslands and of the trees. Consequently it ruled that the responsibility of the pollution had to be beard only by the aircraft company because article 166 of the Aeronautical code states that the moral person in control of the plain is responsible for the damages it might inflight. The aircraft company was in considered to be in control of the plane and was condemned to compensate the victims.