Adkins v. Thomas Solvent Co.
487 N.W.2d 715, 440 Mich. 293 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A private nuisance claim cannot be maintained solely for property value depreciation caused by the unfounded fear of environmental contamination in the general area, if the plaintiff's property itself is not actually or prospectively contaminated and there is no significant interference with the use and enjoyment of the land.
Facts:
- In 1984, the Thomas Solvent Company and other defendants were sued for damages and injunctive relief due to alleged improper handling of chemicals and industrial waste.
- Plaintiffs claimed that toxic chemicals and industrial wastes were released from Thomas Solvent facilities on Raymond Road and Emmett Street, as well as the Raymond Road Landfill, contaminating the ground water.
- An expert, Yaron Sternberg, concluded that a ground water divide prevented contaminants from the Thomas Solvent facilities from reaching the properties of these specific plaintiffs.
- The properties of these twenty-two plaintiffs were located over 2000 feet south and east from the Thomas Solvent facilities.
- These twenty-two plaintiffs conceded that no contaminants ever reached their property.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1984, approximately fifty plaintiffs sued Thomas Solvent Company and other defendants in Calhoun Circuit Court, claiming negligence, continuing nuisance, continuing trespass, strict liability, and ultrahazardous activities.
- In 1985, the complaint was amended to add approximately nineteen plaintiffs.
- The Grand Trunk Railroad defendants filed a motion for summary disposition, seeking to dismiss claims of plaintiffs whose property was unaffected; Thomas Solvent defendants joined this motion.
- Plaintiffs stipulated that claims for these twenty-two litigants be dismissed except for damages for property depreciation.
- The trial court (Calhoun Circuit Court) dismissed the property depreciation claims of these twenty-two plaintiffs, concluding that damages resulted from unfounded public perception, and entered a final judgment for Thomas Solvent defendants.
- The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration and to amend their complaint to add claims regarding contamination of municipal well water, which the trial court denied.
- Plaintiffs appealed as of right from the trial court’s summary disposition order to the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings, finding the trial court erred in dismissing claims merely because ground water was not contaminated.
- This Court (Supreme Court of Michigan) granted defendants’ application for leave to 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:
Does a private nuisance claim permit recovery for property value depreciation caused by public concern about ground water contamination in the general area, even if the plaintiff's specific property is not and will never be contaminated and there is no other significant interference with its use and enjoyment?
Opinions:
Majority - Boyle, J.
No, a private nuisance claim does not permit recovery for property value depreciation solely based on public concern about contamination in the general area, if the plaintiff's property itself is not actually contaminated. The court reasoned that traditionally, private nuisance requires a significant interference with the use and enjoyment of land. While physical intrusion is not always necessary, the negative publicity and unfounded fear of contamination, without actual contamination of the plaintiff's property or a physical effect, does not constitute such a significant interference. The court distinguished between "injury" (a legally cognizable wrong) and "damage" (loss suffered), stating that property depreciation alone, especially when based on unfounded fears, is damnum absque injuria (a loss without a legal injury). It cited precedents like Plassey v S Loewenstein & Son, Warren Twp School Dist v Detroit, and Smith v Western Wayne Co Conservation Ass'n for the principle that property depreciation alone is insufficient to constitute a nuisance, and that claims cannot be based on unfounded fears. The court noted that expanding nuisance law to cover such "unfounded fears" would involve complex policy questions better suited for legislative resolution, particularly given the many identified hazardous waste sites. It concluded that plaintiffs' concession that a ground water divide prevented migration of contaminated water to their property, combined with their claim being solely for property depreciation due to general public concern, meant they failed to allege a significant interference with the use and enjoyment of property.
Dissenting - Levin, J.
Yes, a homeowner should be allowed to recover damages in nuisance for a decline in market value of their home if it reflects interference with the use and enjoyment of their home by a condition tortiously created or maintained on neighboring property, even without demonstrating other compensable injuries. Justice Levin argued that the majority improperly made a factual finding without trial that the depreciation was due to "unfounded fears." He posited that the decline could be due to both well-founded concern about neighborhood contamination and unfounded concern about the plaintiffs' specific homes. Even if the plaintiffs' homes weren't directly contaminated, the overall neighborhood character worsening (e.g., abandoned properties due to contamination) could legitimately impact property values. He cited Exxon Corp v Yarema where damages were awarded for reduction in value of uncontaminated land due to contamination of adjacent property. Justice Levin also highlighted that denial of injunctive relief in previous cases (which often involved lawful businesses or mere potential harm) does not mean damages are unavailable for actual harm caused by tortious conduct. He referenced Dillon v Moran and Rockenbach v Apostle which acknowledged that fear or dread, even if "unfounded," could depress market values and support nuisance claims. He contended that "property depreciation, in itself, may constitute an interference with an interest in the use and enjoyment of property," and that popular fears, even if scientifically unfounded, if they affect the market and are "normal" for the community, should be cognizable in nuisance actions for damages. He cited Restatement and cases involving cemeteries or "pesthouses."
Concurring - Riley, J.
While I agree with the majority's result, I disagree with certain statements made by the majority that suggest that this Court will not hesitate to expand the traditional common-law view or to even abandon such view if it is decided that some policy reason suggests doing so. I believe that such broad speculation concerning the future treatment by this Court of traditional common-law doctrine is unwarranted.
Analysis:
This case significantly narrows the scope of private nuisance claims in Michigan for environmental contamination, particularly concerning purely economic losses from perceived risks. By requiring actual or prospective contamination of the plaintiff's property or a substantial physical interference with its use and enjoyment, the decision protects defendants from liability based solely on market value fluctuations driven by public apprehension. Future plaintiffs will face a higher burden to prove a direct, tangible impact of a nuisance, rather than relying on broader neighborhood effects or widespread, non-physical fears. The ruling highlights a preference for legislative action over judicial expansion of common law in addressing complex environmental policy issues involving economic impacts without direct physical harm.
