A. & P. Food Stores, Inc. v. Kornstein
121 So. 2d 701 (1960)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a temporary nuisance is abated by an injunction, the proper measure of damages is the loss of the property's use value during the existence of the nuisance, not the permanent depreciation in the property's market value, as an injunction eliminates future harm.
Facts:
- Sam and Shirley Kornstein owned and occupied a home.
- A. & P. Food Stores, Inc. (A&P) subsequently constructed and began operating a supermarket on a lot directly behind the Kornsteins' property.
- A seven-foot wall separated the two properties.
- The Kornsteins alleged that A&P's operations created a nuisance through excessive noise from air conditioning units adjacent to their property.
- A&P also scheduled deliveries of foodstuffs and collections of garbage during early morning hours, creating significant disturbances.
- The Kornsteins complained of offensive odors emanating from decayed vegetable matter on A&P's property.
Procedural Posture:
- Sam and Shirley Kornstein sued A. & P. Food Stores, Inc. in a Florida trial court (referred to as the chancellor), alleging the supermarket's operations constituted a nuisance.
- The trial court found in favor of the Kornsteins.
- The trial court issued a permanent injunction restricting A&P's operations and awarded the Kornsteins $7,500 in damages.
- A. & P. Food Stores, Inc., as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
- The Kornsteins were the appellees in the appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
When a business's operations create a temporary nuisance that is abated by an injunction, are the injured property owners entitled to damages for the permanent depreciation in their property's value, or are damages limited to the loss of use value during the period the nuisance existed?
Opinions:
Majority - Horton, C.J.
No. When a temporary nuisance is abated by an injunction, the plaintiff is entitled to damages for the loss of use value of their property during the period the nuisance existed, not for the permanent depreciation of the property's value. The court found substantial evidence to warrant injunctive relief against A&P's nuisance-creating activities, such as excessive noise and early morning deliveries. However, the trial court's injunction was overly broad and needed to be narrowed to only prohibit the specific activities adjacent to the Kornsteins' property that caused the disturbance. The court reasoned that awarding damages for permanent depreciation in property value is a remedy for future harm. Since the injunction abates the nuisance and prevents such future harm, awarding depreciation damages would amount to a double recovery. Therefore, the appropriate measure of damages for a temporary nuisance is the loss of the property's use value (such as diminished rental value) for the duration of the nuisance. The case was remanded for the Kornsteins to prove these specific damages, as they had not been properly pleaded or proven at trial.
Per curiam - On Petition for Rehearing
The court clarified that damages for personal inconvenience and discomfort are special damages that must be specifically stated in the complaint under Florida rules of civil procedure. Since the Kornsteins did not specifically plead these damages, they could not recover for them. However, damages for loss of use are considered general relief that a court can grant. The court reiterated that on remand, any damages for loss of use must be based solely on the harm caused by A&P's unreasonable or excessive use of its property, not the mere presence of the supermarket next door.
Analysis:
This case provides a crucial distinction between remedies for permanent and temporary nuisances. It establishes the principle that if a nuisance is 'abatable' (i.e., can be stopped by a court order), the harm is considered temporary. Consequently, damages are limited to the loss incurred during the nuisance's existence, such as diminished rental or use value. This prevents plaintiffs from receiving a windfall by both stopping the future harm via injunction and collecting damages as if the harm were to continue indefinitely. The decision also reinforces the procedural requirement that claims for special damages, like personal discomfort, must be explicitly pleaded to be recovered.
