Minnesota Senate Bill SF4981

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/7/26
• Refer: 4/7/26

Caption

Trespass of intangible particulate matter civil cause of action establishment provision

Summary

SF 4981 creates a new civil cause of action in Minnesota for “trespass of intangible particulate matter.” Under the bill, a person who causes airborne biological or chemical substances to enter another person’s land may be liable if the intrusion interferes with the land possessor’s right to exclusive possession. The bill defines intangible particulate matter broadly to include airborne biological or chemical substances, specifically mentioning pesticides and other pollutants. If a court finds such a trespass occurred, it may award general and special damages, impose a civil penalty of up to $100 per day for each day the trespass occurred, and grant injunctive or other equitable relief. The proposal would add a new section to Minnesota Statutes chapter 604, which governs civil liability and related remedies.

Impact

The bill would expand Minnesota tort law by recognizing a new property-based civil claim for airborne contamination or drift that reaches private land. It would give landowners and other persons in possession of land a statutory remedy against parties whose chemical or biological emissions interfere with exclusive possession, potentially affecting agricultural operations, pesticide applicators, industrial emitters, and other sources of airborne pollutants. The measure would also authorize courts to award damages, daily civil penalties, and injunctive relief, creating a new enforcement mechanism beyond existing nuisance or trespass theories.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and available legislative context, the measure appears to be introduced and referred for committee consideration without recorded votes or transcript discussion. As a result, there is no documented committee sentiment in the provided materials. The bill’s framing suggests it is intended to address concerns about airborne contamination and property rights, but the available record does not show formal support or opposition from legislators in discussion.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the breadth of the new liability standard. Supporters would likely view the bill as a way to protect landowners from pesticide drift, chemical exposure, and other airborne intrusions, while opponents may argue that the definition of “intangible particulate matter” is broad and could expose farmers, applicators, manufacturers, and other emitters to uncertain liability. Another likely dispute is whether the bill would create overlapping or duplicative remedies with existing nuisance, environmental, or trespass law, and whether the $100-per-day civil penalty and injunctive relief are appropriate for this type of claim.