Banford v. Aldrich Chem. Co., Inc.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that a plaintiff seeking damages for annoyance and discomfort in a nuisance claim must establish that the nuisance caused physical discomfort, although bodily injury is not required. The court also held that fear alone is not an independently compensable item of damages and upheld limits on evidence concerning damages arising outside the explosion and 24-hour evacuation. The court reversed the appellate judgment and reinstated the trial court’s judgment.

Holdings

1. To recover damages for annoyance and discomfort in a nuisance claim, a plaintiff must establish that the nuisance caused physical discomfort. Bodily injury is not required, but the discomfort must be actual, material, and physical rather than trifling, fanciful, or imaginary.
2. Fear, standing alone, is not an independent item of compensable damages for nuisance annoyance and discomfort. Fear and other emotions may be considered when connected to compensable loss of use or loss of enjoyment of property, but they do not independently satisfy the physical-discomfort requirement applicable to the damages claim at issue.
3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by limiting evidence to damages resulting from the isolated explosion and 24-hour evacuation and excluding evidence concerning unrelated prior incidents at Isotec and later town-hall discussions.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a plaintiff seeking nuisance damages for annoyance and discomfort must establish that the nuisance caused physical discomfort.
2. Whether fear standing alone is an independently compensable item of nuisance damages.
3. Whether the trial court properly limited Phase II evidence to damages resulting from the explosion and 24-hour evacuation and excluded evidence of prior incidents and later town-hall discussions.

Disposition

reversed