Robert Gulledge and Diana Gulledge v. Warren Wester and Theodore Sullivan

Summary

In this concurring opinion, Justice Higley addresses whether a landowner’s obstruction of neighboring landowners’ view can support a private nuisance claim under Texas law. The opinion concludes that aesthetic complaints and blocked views are not actionable nuisances, relying on longstanding Texas authority and distinguishing the Texas Supreme Court’s clarification of nuisance law in Crosstex. Justice Higley concurs in the judgment without reaching the sufficiency of the evidence.

Holdings

1. Justice Higley would hold that blocking a view of another landowner is not actionable under Texas nuisance law, including when the complaint is framed as an objection to a desirable or economically beneficial view.
2. Justice Higley would reject the argument that Crosstex overruled the Texas cases excluding aesthetic and blocked-view complaints from nuisance law.
3. A negligent-nuisance claim is governed by ordinary negligence principles and requires proof of duty, breach, damages proximately caused by the breach, and negligent conduct causing a nuisance that results in damages.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of negligent nuisance.
2. Whether, as a matter of law, a neighboring landowner's obstruction of another landowner's view is an actionable nuisance.
3. Whether Crosstex N. Tex. Pipeline, L.P. v. Gardiner overruled or displaced Texas precedent rejecting nuisance claims based on aesthetics or blocked views.

Disposition

other