Ahydrologist's testimony that third-party tests showing volatile organic compounds in water from a sump is "indicative of ground water contamination under the property" is insufficient for a jury to infer that contamination actually existed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled Jan. 8, in an unpublished opinion (Miller v. Mandrin Homes Ltd., 4th Cir., No. 07-1285, unpublished opinion 1/8/09).rnRuling in a superfund action brought by the current owners against the former owner of the property, the Fourth Circuit said the expert's testimony as to the presence of contamination, and his opinion that a landfill may have existed on the site, were merely speculative.rnThe appeals court therefore upheld the trial court's summary judgment ruling, finding that the plaintiffs failed to show that a release of a hazardous substance occurred.
展开▼
机译：美国第四巡回上诉法院裁定，水文学家的证词表明，第三方测试显示出水坑中水中的挥发性有机化合物“表明该物业下的地下水受到污染”，不足以使陪审团推断污染确实存在。第8条，未发表的意见（Miller诉Mandrin Homes Ltd.，第4卷，第07-1285号，未发表的意见1/8/09）。第四巡回法院称，该专家对该污染的证词，以及他认为该场址可能存在垃圾填埋场的看法仅是投机性的。因此，上诉法院维持了初审法院的即决判决，裁定原告为原告。未能显示出有害物质的释放。
展开▼
