Lexplug logoLexplug

Carpenter v. Double R Cattle Company

Court of Appeals of Idaho
669 P.2d 643 (1983)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An intentional invasion of another's interest in the use and enjoyment of land constitutes an unreasonable nuisance if either the gravity of the harm outweighs the utility of the conduct, or if the harm is serious and the financial burden of compensation would not make continuation of the conduct unfeasible. This second test allows for the recovery of damages even when the utility of the conduct outweighs the gravity of the harm.


Facts:

  • A group of homeowners lived in properties neighboring a cattle feedlot.
  • The proprietors of the feedlot expanded its operations, increasing the number of cattle to several thousand.
  • Following the expansion, the homeowners alleged their properties were subjected to noxious odors, air and water pollution from waste drainage, noise, and swarms of insects and birds.
  • The feedlot operations included large manure piles and drainage of waste water.
  • The homeowners claimed these conditions interfered with the comfortable enjoyment of their life and property.

Procedural Posture:

  • A group of homeowners filed a lawsuit against the proprietors of a cattle feedlot in an Idaho district court (trial court), alleging nuisance.
  • The homeowners sought both monetary damages and an injunction to abate the nuisance.
  • The case was tried before a jury, which was asked to perform a fact-finding role for damages and an advisory role for the injunction.
  • The district court instructed the jury to determine if a nuisance existed by weighing the alleged injury against the 'social value' of the feedlot and 'the interests of the community as a whole.'
  • The jury returned a verdict finding that no nuisance existed.
  • The district court entered a final judgment in favor of the feedlot proprietors, denying the homeowners any relief.
  • The homeowners (appellants) appealed the judgment to the Idaho Court of Appeals, arguing that the jury instructions misstated the law of nuisance.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

In a nuisance action for damages, may a defendant be found liable even if the utility of their conduct outweighs the gravity of the harm caused to the plaintiff?


Opinions:

Majority - Burnett, Judge

Yes, a defendant may be liable for damages in a nuisance action even if the utility of their conduct outweighs the gravity of the harm. The court adopted the dual test for an unreasonable nuisance from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 826. Historically, American nuisance law incorporated a balancing of the defendant's utility against the plaintiff's harm to determine if a nuisance existed at all, a departure from the strict liability of English property law. This approach, reflected in the First Restatement, could immunize a socially valuable enterprise from all liability. The court found this insufficient, adopting the Second Restatement's modern view, which provides two separate grounds for finding a nuisance. The first is the traditional balancing test (§ 826(a)), where if harm outweighs utility, an injunction or damages may be appropriate. The second ground (§ 826(b)) allows for damages if the harm is serious and compensating for it is financially feasible for the activity, regardless of its utility. This ensures that socially useful enterprises must internalize the costs of the harm they inflict ('pay their own way') rather than imposing them on their neighbors.



Analysis:

This decision marks a significant modernization of Idaho's nuisance law by formally adopting the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 826. It critically decouples the determination of nuisance for damage purposes from the stricter balancing test used for injunctive relief. This precedent ensures that economically significant enterprises cannot escape liability for serious harm merely by demonstrating their high social utility. The ruling solidifies the principle that while an activity may be too valuable to the community to be shut down, it must still bear the cost of the harm it imposes on individuals, reflecting an economic policy of internalizing externalities.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Carpenter v. Double R Cattle Company (1983) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Carpenter v. Double R Cattle Company