Summary
The Supreme Court of Texas clarifies Texas private-nuisance law, holding that nuisance refers to a type of legal injury involving substantial and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of real property, rather than to a particular cause of action or defendant conduct. The Court explains potential liability for intentionally, negligently, or, in limited circumstances, abnormally dangerous conduct causing a nuisance. It affirms the court of appeals’ judgment remanding the case for a new trial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- What does the term 'nuisance' mean under Texas law, and is it a cause of action, the defendant's conduct, or a type of legal injury?
- What conduct can support liability for creating a private nuisance under Texas law?
- Must a plaintiff prove that the defendant's conduct or land use was unreasonable as a separate element of a nuisance claim?
- What are the elements of a negligently created nuisance?
- Does a strict-liability nuisance theory based on conduct that is abnormal and out of place require abnormally dangerous activity or an abnormally dangerous substance creating a high degree of risk of serious injury?
- Was legally sufficient evidence presented to support the jury's finding that Crosstex negligently created a nuisance?
- Did the court of appeals properly apply the factual-sufficiency standard?
- Did the trial court abuse its discretion by refusing a trial amendment alleging that Crosstex's conduct was abnormal and out of place in its surroundings?
Holdings
- A private nuisance is a legal injury involving a condition that substantially interferes with the use and enjoyment of land by causing unreasonable discomfort or annoyance to persons of ordinary sensibilities. The term does not refer to a defendant's conduct, a cause of action, or the resulting damages.
- To establish a nuisance injury, a plaintiff must prove a substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of land and discomfort or annoyance that is unreasonable under an objective standard based on persons of ordinary sensibilities. The plaintiff need not prove that the defendant's conduct or land use was independently unreasonable to establish the nuisance injury.
- A defendant may be liable for causing a private nuisance when the defendant intentionally causes it, negligently causes it, or, in limited circumstances, causes it through abnormally dangerous or ultra-hazardous conduct. Mere accidental interference is insufficient.
- A defendant intentionally causes a nuisance when the defendant intentionally creates or maintains the condition substantially interfering with the claimant's use and enjoyment of land, meaning the defendant desires the interference or knows that it is resulting or substantially certain to result. The defendant need not intend to cause injury or agree that the interference is substantial or unreasonable.
- A negligently created nuisance is governed by ordinary negligence principles. The plaintiff must prove a legal duty, breach, damages proximately caused by the breach, and that the negligent conduct caused a nuisance resulting in the plaintiff's damages.
- To the extent Texas recognizes a nuisance theory based on conduct that is abnormal and out of place in its surroundings, the conduct must constitute an abnormally dangerous activity or involve an abnormally dangerous substance creating a high degree of risk of serious injury. Abnormality or lack of conformity with the surroundings alone is insufficient.
- The trial court properly submitted whether Crosstex negligently created a nuisance and properly defined nuisance and negligence. Legally sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding because evidence showed extremely loud and persistent noise and vibrations substantially interfering with the Gardiners' use and enjoyment of their ranch, together with evidence from which the jury could find negligent failure to mitigate.
- The trial court properly refused the Gardiners' requested trial amendment because the record contained no evidence that the compressor station was abnormally dangerous or that Crosstex engaged in abnormally dangerous or ultra-hazardous conduct.
- A prevailing private-nuisance claimant may potentially obtain damages, injunctive relief, or self-help abatement, but the availability of a particular remedy depends on the circumstances. Temporary nuisances generally support accrued loss-of-use or rental-value damages, while permanent nuisances generally support diminution in market value.
Key quotations
“Today we again face the challenge of determining what constitutes a “nuisance” that gives rise to liability under Texas law. Taking this opportunity to clarify the law, we hold that the term “nuisance” refers not to a defendant’s conduct or to a legal claim or cause of action but to a type of legal injury involving interference with the use and enjoyment of real property.” (at 585)
“A ‘nuisance’ is a condition that substantially interferes with the use and enjoyment of land by causing unreasonable discomfort or annoyance to persons of ordinary sensibilities attempting to use and enjoy it.” (at 595)
“To prove a nuisance (that is, a legal injury based on interference with use and enjoyment of land), a plaintiff must establish that the effects of the substantial interference on the plaintiff are unreasonable—not that the defendant’s conduct or land use was unreasonable.” (at 602)
“We thus retain the three general categories of conduct that may support liability for creating a nuisance” (at 609)
“The only unique element, which derives from the nature of the legal injury on which the plaintiff bases the claim, is the burden to prove that the defendant’s negligent conduct caused a nuisance, which in turn resulted in the plaintiff’s damages.” (at 621)
“The mere fact that the defendant’s use of its land is “abnormal and out of place in its surroundings” will not support a claim alleging a nuisance; instead, in the absence of evidence that the defendant intentionally or negligently caused the nuisance, the abnormal and out-of-place conduct must be abnormally “dangerous” conduct that creates a high degree of risk of serious injury.” (at 625)
“We hold today that the term “nuisance” describes a particular legal injury involving interference with the use and enjoyment of property but does not describe a cause of action; that a defendant can be liable for intentionally or negligently causing a condition that constitutes a nuisance; and that neither claim requires a separate finding that the defendant unreasonably used its property when creating a nuisance.” (at 627)
Factual background
Crosstex constructed and operated a natural-gas compressor station on a 20-acre tract adjacent to the Gardiners' ranch. The station's four diesel engines operated continuously or nearly continuously, producing noise and vibrations that the Gardiners and neighbors described as resembling a locomotive, jet airplane, or helicopter. Crosstex undertook multiple mitigation efforts after receiving complaints, but the Gardiners maintained that the noise remained unreasonably loud and substantially interfered with their use and enjoyment of the ranch.
Procedural history
The Gardiners sued Crosstex for private nuisance, ordinary negligence, and gross negligence based on noise and vibrations from Crosstex's natural-gas compressor station. The trial court directed a verdict for Crosstex on ordinary negligence, submitted intentional- and negligent-nuisance theories to the jury, and entered judgment for the Gardiners after the jury found negligent nuisance, a permanent nuisance, and more than $2 million in diminution in value. The court of appeals held the evidence legally sufficient but factually insufficient to support negligent nuisance, reversed, and remanded for a new trial; it also held that the Gardiners should have been allowed to amend their pleading to assert an abnormal-and-out-of-place nuisance theory. The Supreme Court affirmed the remand for a new trial but reversed the holding requiring the trial amendment.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded to the trial court for a new trial governed by the nuisance-law principles announced in the opinion. The trial court should not permit the proposed strict-liability theory based merely on conduct that is abnormal and out of place absent evidence of abnormally dangerous conduct or substances.