Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co.
26 NY 2d 219, 257 NE 2d 870 (1970)
Rule of Law:
Where a nuisance has been found, but there is a marked disparity between the economic consequences of granting an injunction and the economic consequences of the nuisance, a court may exercise its equitable discretion to deny the injunction and instead award permanent damages to the injured party.
Facts:
- Atlantic Cement Co. operated a large cement plant near Albany with an investment exceeding $45,000,000.
- The plant employed over 300 people.
- Neighboring landowners, including Boomer, suffered property damage from dirt, smoke, and vibrations emanating from the plant.
- The total permanent damage to all the plaintiffs' properties was determined to be $185,000.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (Boomer et al.) sued defendant Atlantic Cement Co. in New York Supreme Court, Albany County (the trial court), seeking an injunction and damages for nuisance.
- The trial court found that the defendant created a nuisance and awarded temporary damages.
- The trial court denied the plaintiffs' request for an injunction.
- Plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the denial of the injunction to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's decision.
- Plaintiffs, as appellants, then appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
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 court have the discretion to deny an injunction and award permanent damages for a continuing nuisance where the harm to the plaintiffs is relatively small compared to the economic impact of shutting down the defendant's operation?
Opinions:
Majority - Bergan, J.
Yes. A court has the discretion to deny an injunction and award permanent damages where there is a large disparity between the economic consequences of the injunction and the nuisance. The court departs from the traditional New York rule established in cases like Whalen v. Union Bag & Paper Co., which mandated an injunction for any substantial nuisance regardless of economic disparity. The court reasons that strictly applying the old rule would mean closing down a $45 million plant with 300 employees to remedy a total of $185,000 in damages, an immediately drastic and inequitable remedy. The court chooses to award permanent damages, which compensates the plaintiffs for the total economic loss to their property, both present and future. This remedy is framed as imposing a 'servitude on the land,' which redresses the private wrong between the parties without forcing the court to solve the broader public policy issue of air pollution and avoids the practical difficulties of a postponed injunction. This approach provides justice between the parties while also creating an economic incentive for the defendant to develop nuisance-abatement technology.
Dissenting - Jasen, J.
No. The court should not permit a nuisance to continue indefinitely upon the payment of permanent damages, as this effectively licenses a continuing wrong. The majority's decision overrules a long-established and sound legal principle that a nuisance causing substantial damage must be enjoined. By allowing the cement company to pay a one-time fee, the court removes the incentive to alleviate the pollution, which harms not only the plaintiffs but also the general public. The majority's reliance on cases involving public benefit, such as the elevated railway cases, is misplaced because this case involves a private company creating a nuisance for its own private interest. This amounts to a private entity using inverse condemnation for its own gain, which is constitutionally impermissible. The proper remedy would be to grant a postponed injunction, giving the company a fixed period (e.g., 18 months) to abate the nuisance or face being shut down.
Analysis:
This case represents a significant departure from traditional nuisance law, which treated a property owner's right to be free from substantial interference as nearly absolute. The court shifts from a rights-based framework to a utilitarian balancing of equities, weighing the social and economic utility of the defendant's conduct against the harm suffered by the plaintiff. This decision introduces flexibility into nuisance remedies, allowing courts to craft solutions that avoid economically disastrous outcomes. However, it also raises criticism for effectively 'licensing' pollution and allowing private entities to pay to infringe upon the property rights of others, a form of judicial eminent domain for private benefit.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co. (1970)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"