Copart Industries, Inc. v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.
383 N.Y.S.2d 201, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12580, 52 A.D.2d 791 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a plaintiff's proof for a nuisance claim is based on allegations of a defendant's negligent conduct, the court may properly instruct a jury on principles of negligence, including contributory negligence, even if the complaint did not formally plead a cause of action for negligence.
Facts:
- Copart Industries, Inc. leased space in the Brooklyn Navy Yard for the purpose of storing and preparing new automobiles for dealers.
- Noxious emissions, allegedly from a nearby Consolidated Edison Company plant, caused damage to the exterior paint of the cars Copart was servicing.
- Consolidated Edison's plant, which had been converted from coal to fuel oil, had previously used a mechanical-electrostatic precipitator to trap particulate matter, but this device was removed prior to Copart's lease.
- The damage to the automobiles ultimately compelled Copart to cease its business operations at that location.
- At trial, the parties presented conflicting expert testimony regarding whether Consolidated Edison's plant or other fuel burners in the area were the source of the damaging emissions.
Procedural Posture:
- Copart Industries, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. in the Supreme Court, New York County (a trial court).
- The complaint included causes of action for nuisance and trespass.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- The trial court judge instructed the jury on the law of nuisance and contributory negligence, to which Copart's counsel objected.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Consolidated Edison.
- A judgment was entered in favor of Consolidated Edison, and Copart Industries, Inc. (as appellant) appealed to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate 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:
Is a trial court's jury instruction on negligence proper in a nuisance action where the plaintiff's proof at trial demonstrates that the nuisance claim is inextricably intertwined with allegations of negligent conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - per curiam (Silverman, Lane, Nunez, JJ.)
Yes. A trial court's jury instruction on negligence is proper in a nuisance action where the claim is dependent upon negligence. While absolute nuisance does not require an element of negligence, a qualified nuisance may. Courts cannot rely solely on the label of a cause of action in a complaint; the substance of the proof presented at trial is determinative. In this case, the expert testimony regarding the proper operation of the plant and available anti-pollution technology showed an 'inextricable intertwining of negligence with the nuisance claimed.' Therefore, because the proof portrayed the alleged wrong as a 'nuisance, though dependent upon negligence,' the instructions to the jury on the issue of negligence were correct.
Dissenting - Markewich and Kupferman, JJ.
No. The trial court's jury instruction was improper and confusing. A cause of action in nuisance does not involve the element of negligence as one of its essential factors. By mingling elements of nuisance and negligence, the charge could have confused the jury. This confusion was compounded by a further instruction requiring the plaintiff to prove the injury was intentionally inflicted, which is not a necessary element of nuisance. The case should be reversed and remanded for a new trial with proper jury instructions focused solely on nuisance.
Analysis:
This decision illustrates the blurring of the lines between the torts of nuisance and negligence in New York law. It establishes that a plaintiff cannot strategically plead only nuisance to avoid the defense of contributory or comparative negligence if the factual basis of the claim rests on the defendant's failure to exercise reasonable care. The court's willingness to look past the 'label' of the complaint to the 'substance' of the proof means that cases involving industrial pollution will often be analyzed under negligence principles. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed on a strict nuisance theory when the harm results from operational choices rather than from an inherently dangerous or illegal activity.
Unlock the full brief for Copart Industries, Inc. v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.