Jost v. Dairyland Power Cooperative
45 Wis. 2d 164, 172 N.W.2d 647 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a nuisance action for damages, a defendant's use of due care or the social and economic utility of their conduct is not a valid defense against liability for substantial harm caused to a plaintiff's property.
Facts:
- Dairyland Power Cooperative operated a power plant which emitted sulphur-dioxide gases into the atmosphere.
- Over a period of several years, these emissions drifted onto the nearby farms of Jost, Andrew Noll, and Norbert Noll.
- The sulphur fumes caused tangible damage to the farmers' properties, including harming their alfalfa crops and other vegetation.
- The fumes also caused metal window screens on the plaintiffs' homes to rust and become unusable within a short time.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Jost, Andrew Noll, and Norbert Noll sued Dairyland Power Cooperative in a state trial court, alleging nuisance.
- Before trial, Dairyland moved to compel the plaintiffs to elect between a nuisance and a negligence theory, but the trial court denied the motion.
- The case was tried before a jury, which found that Dairyland's operations constituted a continuing nuisance.
- The jury answered 'no' to a special verdict question asking if the nuisance caused 'substantial damage,' but nevertheless awarded specific monetary damages for crop losses to all plaintiffs and for diminution in market value to one plaintiff.
- The trial judge changed the jury's answer on the 'substantial damage' question from 'no' to 'yes' and entered judgment for the plaintiffs.
- Dairyland Power Cooperative, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
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, is a defendant's use of due care or the social and economic utility of their conduct a valid defense against liability for substantial harm caused to a plaintiff's property?
Opinions:
Majority - Heffernan, J.
No. In an action for damages resulting from a nuisance, a defendant's conduct is not excused by showing they exercised due care or that their enterprise provides a great social or economic utility. Nuisance liability focuses on the invasion of the plaintiff's interest and the resulting harm, not the reasonableness of the defendant's conduct. The court reasoned that nuisance is a field of tort liability concerned with the damage inflicted, not the type of conduct that led to it. Citing precedents like Pennoyer v. Allen, the court affirmed that freedom from negligence is no defense if the conduct's consequences cause substantial injury. Furthermore, the court rejected the 'comparative injury' doctrine for damage suits in Wisconsin, stating that even socially useful enterprises must compensate for the private property damage they cause, as it would otherwise constitute a taking of property without due process.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Wisconsin's traditional, property-rights-focused approach to nuisance law in actions for damages. By unequivocally rejecting the 'balancing of equities' or 'comparative injury' test, the court prevents large, economically significant enterprises from effectively externalizing the costs of pollution onto smaller property owners. The ruling establishes a clear precedent that in damage suits, the focus is on compensating the harm done, regardless of the polluter's carefulness or social importance. This strengthens the position of individual landowners against industrial polluters and reinforces the principle that socially valuable activities must still pay for the private harm they cause.
Unlock the full brief for Jost v. Dairyland Power Cooperative