Hall v. Phillips
436 N.W.2d 139, 1989 Neb. LEXIS 72, 231 Neb. 269 (1989)
Rule of Law:
For a law action seeking damages from a tortious private nuisance, liability arises if the defendant's conduct proximately causes an invasion of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of land, and the invasion is either intentional and unreasonable, or unintentional and actionable under rules for negligent, reckless, or abnormally dangerous conduct.
Facts:
- Gary Phillips planted a corn crop on his land, adjacent to land owned by George and Jeanette Hall, on May 10, 1985.
- On May 15, 1985, Phillips applied Atrazine 4L Herbicide to his corn crop.
- The manufacturer's literature for Atrazine warned against using it near adjacent desirable trees, shrubs, or plants, and noted its slow degradation, requiring two years before leaching to a safe level for a bean crop.
- Phillips' application of Atrazine was free from negligence and without drift from his tract.
- A 50-mile-per-hour wind was not unusual during the planting season in the area, and on May 30, an extraordinarily high wind occurred, moving dirt and soil off fields.
- The Halls had planted beans on their land for 20 years and had never applied Atrazine to their cropland; George Hall planted a bean crop around June 10, 1985.
- Later, the Halls noticed their young bean plants suffered burns from Atrazine, which stunted their growth and prevented normal maturation.
- A chemical analysis confirmed the presence of Atrazine in soil samples from the Halls' land, and the yield from their bean crop was reduced due to the Atrazine injury.
- Phillips admitted applying Atrazine but denied liability, asserting the severe wind was an 'Act of God' that proximately caused the damage.
Procedural Posture:
- George and Jeanette Hall filed suit against Gary Phillips in a district court (trial court) alleging his conduct constituted a private nuisance.
- Both Halls and Phillips moved for summary judgment.
- The district court concluded that Phillips’ acts did not amount to nuisance under the Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 821A et seq. and granted summary judgment to Phillips.
- The district court dismissed Halls' action.
- Halls appealed the summary judgment and dismissal to the Supreme Court of Nebraska.
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 genuine issue of material fact exist as to whether a farmer's application of herbicide to his corn crop, which was subsequently blown by wind onto an adjacent bean crop, constituted an 'intentional and unreasonable' invasion of the neighbor's land, thereby precluding summary judgment in a private nuisance action seeking damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Shanahan, J.
Yes, a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether Phillips' invasion of Halls' land was intentional and unreasonable, meaning summary judgment was improperly granted. The Supreme Court of Nebraska adopts the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 822 for law actions seeking damages from a private nuisance, requiring that the defendant's conduct be a proximate cause of an invasion of another’s interest in the private use and enjoyment of land, and that the invasion be either intentional and unreasonable, or otherwise actionable under rules controlling liability for negligence or abnormally dangerous activities. An invasion is 'intentional' if the actor acts for the purpose of causing it, knows it is resulting from their conduct, or knows it is substantially certain to result from their conduct, even without malice. An invasion is 'unreasonable' if the gravity of the harm outweighs the utility of the actor's conduct, or if the harm is serious and the financial burden of compensation would not make the conduct unfeasible. While Phillips' application of Atrazine was not negligent and no drift occurred at the time of application, a factual question remains as to whether the invasion by windblown Atrazine-tainted soil was 'intentional' because it was 'substantially certain to follow' from his application of the herbicide, especially given the frequent high winds in the area. Furthermore, if the invasion was intentional, factual questions concerning its 'unreasonableness' also exist. These questions cannot be summarily resolved and require further proceedings, potentially by a trier of fact.
Analysis:
This case significantly alters Nebraska's jurisprudence on private nuisance actions for damages by formally adopting the framework of the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 822. Previously, Nebraska nuisance law primarily focused on equitable relief and standards that, while often consistent, lacked the specific 'intentional and unreasonable' distinction of the Restatement. The adoption provides clearer guidance for juries in law actions and broadens the scope of 'intentional' conduct to include actions where harm is 'substantially certain to follow,' even without a malicious purpose, thus potentially increasing liability for landowners whose actions foreseeably impact neighbors, regardless of due care at the time of the initial action. This ruling emphasizes an objective, balancing test to determine the unreasonableness of an invasion, considering both harm and utility.
