Finding PFAS Cases

In fairness to the paper mill defendants, there is at least some reason to doubt whether the Restatement factors support strict liability. For example, plaintiffs allege that the paper mill defendants disposed of “millions of pounds of waste” by spreading it on Oneida County farmland (id. ¶ 2), arguably suggesting that such application was common. Further, the very 459*459 existence of the Wisconsin DNR's “Interim Strategy for Land Application of Biosolids and Industrial Sludges Containing PFAS” (dkt. #52-1) suggests that such an application to the land may have been common. Finally, the paper mill defendants point to cases where Wisconsin courts have concluded the Restatement factors suggest activities involving hazardous materials were not abnormally dangerous. E.g., Grube, 213 Wis. 2d at 545-47, 570 N.W.2d 851 (use of an underground storage tank was not an abnormally dangerous activity); Bennett v. Larsen Co., 118 Wis. 2d 681, 703-05, 348 N.W.2d 540, 553 (1984) (pesticide spraying not an “ultrahazardous” activity); Fortier, 164 Wis. 2d at 667-75, 476 N.W.2d 593 (depositing volatile organic compounds at landfill not an abnormally dangerous activity).