Armory Park Neighborhood Association v. Episcopal Community Services in Arizona
712 P.2d 914 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A lawful activity may constitute an enjoinable public nuisance if it sets in motion a chain of events that results in a substantial and unreasonable interference with a public right, even if the acts causing the interference are committed off-premises by third parties and the activity itself violates no specific criminal or zoning laws.
Facts:
- In December 1982, Episcopal Community Services in Arizona (ECS) opened the St. Martin’s Center in Tucson.
- The Center's sole purpose was to provide one free meal a day to indigent persons.
- The Center's operation attracted numerous transients to the adjacent Armory Park residential neighborhood.
- Patrons of the Center frequently trespassed onto residents’ yards, where they would urinate, defecate, drink, and litter.
- Some patrons broke into residents' storage areas and unoccupied homes.
- The number of arrests in the area increased dramatically, and many residents of the Armory Park Neighborhood Association (APNA) became frightened and altered their lifestyles.
Procedural Posture:
- Armory Park Neighborhood Association (APNA) filed a complaint in Pima County Superior Court (a state trial court) seeking to enjoin Episcopal Community Services (ECS) from operating its food program.
- The trial court held a hearing and granted APNA's application for a preliminary injunction, finding the Center's activities constituted a public nuisance.
- The trial court denied ECS's motion to dismiss.
- ECS, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Arizona Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court).
- A divided Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order, vacating the injunction and directing the trial court to grant ECS's motion to dismiss.
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted review.
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 lawful enterprise that attracts patrons who commit acts off-premises that interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties constitute an enjoinable public nuisance, even if the enterprise is not violating any criminal or zoning laws?
Opinions:
Majority - Feldman, Justice.
Yes, a lawful enterprise can constitute an enjoinable public nuisance under these circumstances. The court reasoned that liability for a nuisance may be imposed on an entity that sets in motion the forces that cause the tortious act. The key is the causal connection between the enterprise's activity and the harm. Here, the Center’s act of offering free meals directly caused the influx of transients whose subsequent off-premises conduct interfered with the residents' property rights. The court applied a balancing test, weighing the social utility of the Center against the harm inflicted on the neighborhood. While the Center's charitable purpose is valuable, the law does not allow the entire cost of such an enterprise to be borne by the residents of a single neighborhood. Furthermore, compliance with zoning ordinances and the absence of a specific criminal violation by the enterprise are not complete defenses to a public nuisance claim, as a court may still enjoin an activity that is conducted in an unreasonable manner.
Analysis:
This case establishes that nuisance liability can extend to the off-premises conduct of a business's patrons, focusing on causation rather than direct action by the defendant. It clarifies that compliance with zoning and criminal law is not a shield against a nuisance claim if the manner of operation is unreasonable. This precedent broadens the scope of responsibility for businesses that attract large crowds or specific demographics, holding them accountable for the foreseeable negative externalities their operations impose on the surrounding community.
