Carpenter v. The Double R Cattle Company, Inc.
701 P.2d 222 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a nuisance action for damages, the determination of whether a defendant's conduct is unreasonable requires balancing the gravity of the harm to the plaintiff against the utility of the defendant's conduct and its value to the community. Idaho explicitly rejects the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 826(b), which would allow a finding of nuisance based on serious harm and the feasibility of compensation, regardless of the conduct's utility.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs are homeowners who live near a cattle feedlot owned and operated by Double R Cattle Co., Inc.
- In 1977, Double R Cattle Co. expanded its feedlot to accommodate approximately 9,000 cattle.
- The homeowners alleged that the expanded feedlot created significant odor, manure accumulation, and pollution of water.
- The homeowners also claimed the feedlot caused insect and bird infestations, dust, and noise.
- These conditions allegedly interfered with the homeowners' use and enjoyment of their properties, constituting a nuisance.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff homeowners sued Double R Cattle Co., Inc. in Idaho district court, alleging its feedlot was a nuisance.
- Following a trial, a jury returned a verdict for the defendant, finding no nuisance existed.
- The district court judge also issued independent findings of fact and conclusions of law, entering judgment for the defendant.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the Idaho Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals, as the intermediate appellate court, reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.
- The defendant, Double R Cattle Co., Inc., petitioned the Idaho Supreme Court, the state's highest court, for review of the Court of Appeals' decision.
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 private nuisance action for damages, must a court balance the utility of the defendant's conduct against the gravity of the harm to the plaintiff, or may a nuisance be found regardless of utility if the harm is serious and compensation for that harm is feasible?
Opinions:
Majority - Bakes, Justice
No. In determining the existence of a nuisance, a court must balance the utility of the conduct against the gravity of the harm. The court reasoned that Idaho law, as established in McNichols v. J.R. Simplot Co., requires consideration of community interests and the utility of the conduct. The court explicitly rejected the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 826(b), which would permit a nuisance finding for serious harm even if the utility outweighs the harm, arguing that such a rule would place an unreasonable burden on Idaho's core industries like agriculture, mining, and lumber. The court also noted several procedural errors by the appellants, including their failure to provide a complete evidentiary record and their arguments at trial against applying the Restatement.
Dissenting - Bistline, Justice
Yes. A nuisance should be found if the harm is serious and compensation is feasible, even if the utility of the conduct outweighs the gravity of the harm. The dissent argued that the majority's adherence to a traditional balancing test is an outdated, 'primitive rule of law.' It championed the adoption of Restatement (Second) § 826(b) as a more progressive approach that allows essential industries to continue operating while fairly compensating individuals who are seriously harmed. The dissent framed the harm as an 'external cost' of business that should be borne by the company and its consumers, not by the few individuals living nearby.
Concurring - Huntley, Justice
Yes. Concurring with the dissent, this opinion agrees that the more modern rule of § 826(b) should be adopted. It also criticizes the majority's reasoning that erroneous jury instructions were immaterial because the jury was advisory. The opinion states that if the trial judge misunderstood the law sufficiently to give faulty instructions, it logically follows that the judge was operating under the same misapprehension of law when making his own ultimate findings.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Idaho's commitment to a traditional, industry-protective nuisance doctrine that emphasizes a balancing of interests. By explicitly rejecting the Restatement (Second) § 826(b)'s more plaintiff-friendly approach, the court entrenched the principle that the social and economic utility of an enterprise can shield it from liability for damages, even when it causes significant harm to neighbors. This precedent makes it substantially more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in nuisance claims against key state industries, as they must prove not only that they were harmed, but that their harm outweighs the defendant's contribution to the community and economy. The ruling prioritizes economic development over individual property rights in this context.
Unlock the full brief for Carpenter v. The Double R Cattle Company, Inc.