Holding and Reasoning (Cutter, J.)Yes.Although the law in Massachusetts is that a landowner may generally compel the removal of an encroaching structure upon his land even if the cost of removal would be substantial and the error was unintentional. The invasion is substantial and not de minimisNoteTrespass scenarioAdams v. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. 1999 pg. 423Rule of LawA possessor of land in Michigan proving a direct or immediate intrusion of a physical, tangible object onto his land is presumptively entitled to recover at least nominal damages in trespass, however, noise, vibrations, and dust are intangible objects and therefore do not give rise to an action in trespass but instead nuisance.FactsCleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. (Cleveland-Cliffs) (defendant) owned the Empire Mine, which operated 24 hours a day. In doing so, the mine emitted vibrations, noise, odors and dust. Adams (plaintiff) brought suit against Cleveland-Cliffs for trespass and nuisance based on the noise, odors, and settling dust. IssueIs a possessor of land in Michigan who proves a direct or immediate intrusion of a physical, tangible object onto his land presumptively entitled to recover at least nominal damages in trespass?