Bennett v. . Long Island Railroad Co.
1905 N.Y. LEXIS 749, 181 N.Y. 431, 74 N.E. 418 (1905)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Annoyances and inconveniences, such as noise and smoke, that are the necessary and unavoidable result of a legislatively authorized enterprise, like a steam railroad operating on its own land, do not constitute a legal nuisance to an adjacent landowner who acquired their property subsequent to the establishment of the enterprise.
Facts:
- In 1834, the Jamaica & Brooklyn R. R. Co., the defendant's predecessor, was granted land in fee for the express purpose of constructing and operating a steam surface railroad.
- The railroad company constructed and operated a steam railroad on this land.
- Many years after the railroad began operation, Atlantic Avenue was opened as a public street on both sides of the railroad's land.
- After Atlantic Avenue was opened, the plaintiff purchased property adjacent to the railroad's land, separated by the newly created street.
- To meet increasing demands, the defendant railroad constructed an elevated viaduct on its land to connect its surface line with another elevated railroad system.
- This new structure and the resulting increase in train operations caused additional noise, smoke, soot, cinders, and interference with the plaintiff's light and view.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant railroad company in the trial court.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the defendant's structure and operations constituted a nuisance.
- The defendant railroad company (as appellant) appealed to the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's judgment.
- The plaintiff (as appellant) appealed the reversal to the Court of Appeals of New York.
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 the construction of an elevated viaduct and the increased operation of a steam railroad on land the railroad owns in fee constitute a legal nuisance to an adjacent property owner who acquired their title after the railroad's rights were established?
Opinions:
Majority - Werner, J.
No. The construction of the viaduct and increased operation of the railroad do not constitute a legal nuisance. The plaintiff acquired her title subject to the defendant railroad's pre-existing and vested right to operate a steam railroad on its own land. The annoyances complained of—such as noise, smoke, and vibrations—are not a legal nuisance because they are the necessary incidents of the railroad's legislatively authorized operations. The court reasoned that when the legislature authorizes an enterprise like a steam railroad, it implicitly sanctions the unavoidable inconveniences that result from its proper operation. The railroad was merely adapting to increasing demands, and an increase in the volume of traffic does not change the legal nature of the annoyances. This case is distinguished from others where the landowner's rights predated the railroad's or where the specific use complained of (like a turntable) was not the primary, authorized purpose for which the land was acquired.
Dissenting - Bartlett and Vann, JJ.
The text notes that Judges Bartlett and Vann dissented but does not provide the reasoning for their dissent.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that a legislatively sanctioned activity is shielded from nuisance claims for actions that are a necessary consequence of its lawful operation. It strongly affirms the 'coming to the nuisance' defense, emphasizing that landowners who acquire property next to an established railroad take it subject to the inconveniences inherent in the railroad's operation and reasonable expansion. This precedent provides significant protection for public utilities and established industries against later-arriving residential developments. The ruling carefully distinguishes between nuisances arising from unauthorized or unreasonable uses of land versus the sanctioned and unavoidable byproducts of a legally authorized enterprise.
