WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SF 4981

Trespass of intangible particulate matter civil cause of action establishment provision

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Amanda Hemmingsen-Jaeger

Creates a civil trespass claim for unauthorized intrusion of intangible particulate matter onto someone’s property, enabling damages or injunctive relief.

Referred to Judiciary and Public Safety
#crimesandcriminals #legalproceedings
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SF 4981

Summary of SF 4981 (2025-2026) – Minnesota

Title

Trespass of intangible particulate matter civil cause of action establishment provision

Purpose and Intent

SF 4981 proposes the creation of a civil cause of action for trespass involving intangible particulate matter. In general terms, the bill would allow a private party to sue another party for the unauthorized intrusion or deposition of invisible or airborne particulate matter that is not physically tangible in the sense of a solid object, but is still capable of violating a person’s property or rights by entering their space or property.

Key Provisions (highlights)

  • Civil cause of action: Establishes a new right to sue in civil court for trespass when intangible particulate matter enters or deposits on a person’s property or within their lawful space.
  • Definition of “intangible particulate matter”: The bill defines or relies on a definition of particulate matter that is intangible (e.g., fine particulates, aerosols, emissions) rather than a physical object. The exact statutory definition would specify what constitutes “intangible particulate matter” for purposes of the trespass claim.
  • Trespass elements (likely, by standard trespass framework):
    • Unauthorized intrusion or deposition of intangible particulate matter.
    • On or into the plaintiff’s property or space.
    • Causation and damages (with potential for monetary damages, injunctive relief, or other remedies as provided by the bill).
  • Remedies: The bill would authorize typical civil remedies for trespass, potentially including damages, injunctive relief, and costs. The precise remedies and caps (if any) would be specified in the text.
  • Defenses and limitations: The bill would typically outline possible defenses (e.g., consent, regulatory compliance, normal industry operations, absence of intent) and any limitations on liability (e.g., sovereign, governmental immunity exemptions, or exemption for certain regulated activities).

Who Would Be Affected

  • Private property owners and occupants: Individuals or entities that own or lease property and could be affected by the intrusion or deposition of intangible particulate matter.
  • Potential defendants: Persons or entities whose activities might release or cause intangible particulate matter to intrude onto another’s property (industrial facilities, businesses, or individuals engaged in activities producing particulates).
  • Industries and regulatory contexts: Any industry whose operations emit airborne particulate matter could be impacted if the court recognizes such emissions as actionable trespass under the bill.
  • Public agencies: Depending on the bill’s language, there could be implications for regulatory agencies overseeing air quality and nuisance claims.

Procedural and Timeline Aspects

  • Introduction and referral: SF 4981 was introduced on 2026-04-07 and referred to Judiciary and Public Safety.
  • Sponsor: Co-sponsor Amanda Hemmingsen-Jaeger.
  • Status: As of the current summary, the bill is in the early legislative stage (introduction and committee referrals). No final passage or enacted status is indicated.
  • Next steps in process: Committee hearings, potential amendments, floor debate, and votes in the Minnesota Senate, followed by a House counterpart (or concurrent process) and final reconciliation before potential enactment.

Notes

  • The summary above reflects the bill’s stated purpose to create a civil trespass action for intangible particulate matter and does not include text-level specifics not provided in the summary. For precise definitions, elements of the tort, defenses, damages, and any statutory limits or exemptions, the bill’s actual text and committee analysis should be consulted.

If you’d like, I can tailor this summary to emphasize potential impacts on specific sectors (e.g., manufacturing, agriculture, or construction) or compare it to existing Minnesota nuisance or nuisance-tort theories.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.