Lee v. Florida Public Utilities Company
4 A.L.R. 3d 896, 145 So. 2d 299 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A lawful business, even when operating in an area designated for commercial or industrial use, may be found to have created an actionable private nuisance if its operations are conducted in an unreasonable manner that deprives an adjoining property owner of the free use and enjoyment of their property.
Facts:
- Linton Lee and Nadine J. Lee owned and operated a fuel oil business, which also served as their home, in a commercial section of Fernandina.
- The Lees' property was adjacent to an electrical generating plant operated by Florida Public Utilities Company.
- For approximately five years, the main generating plant operated without being particularly objectionable to the Lees, as its noise was contained and its fumes were emitted from a tall smokestack.
- Approximately three years prior to the lawsuit, Florida Public Utilities installed three mobile generating units in railroad boxcars on a track between its plant and the Lees' property.
- These mobile units operated continuously, 24 hours a day.
- The mobile units emitted fumes from short smokestacks, creating strong, noxious odors.
- The operation of these units produced intense noise that interfered with the Lees' business and sleep, and caused vibrations strong enough to rattle their windows, dishes, and beds.
- The Lees complained to Florida Public Utilities, which promised to take steps to minimize the disturbances, but the conditions continued unabated.
Procedural Posture:
- Linton Lee and Nadine J. Lee filed a lawsuit against Florida Public Utilities Company in a Florida trial court, seeking damages for a private nuisance.
- The case went to trial.
- At the conclusion of the Lees' case-in-chief, the defendant moved for a directed verdict.
- The trial court judge granted the directed verdict in favor of the defendant, Florida Public Utilities Company.
- A final judgment was entered for the defendant based on the directed verdict.
- The Lees, as appellants, appealed the final judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
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 the operation of mobile generating units by an electric company, which produces intense noise, noxious fumes, and significant vibrations that harm an adjacent property owner, constitute a potentially actionable private nuisance even though the operations are located in a commercial or industrial area?
Opinions:
Majority - Wigginton, J.
Yes, such operation may constitute an actionable private nuisance. A lawful business may be conducted in such an unreasonable manner that it deprives a neighbor of the free use or enjoyment of their property. The central test for determining if a business in an industrial area is a nuisance is the rule of reasonableness. While one who chooses to live in an industrial area must accept the normal inconveniences of such a location, they are not required to endure unreasonable harm. The Lees presented sufficient evidence of excessive noise, odors, and vibrations to create a prima facie case of nuisance. Therefore, it is a question for the jury to determine whether the utility company's use of its property was reasonable under the circumstances and whether it had taken all reasonable measures to minimize the harm to its neighbors.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms that the characterization of an area as industrial is not an absolute defense to a nuisance claim. It solidifies the 'reasonableness' standard as the key balancing test between a landowner's right to use their property for a lawful business and a neighbor's right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property. The case underscores that a significant change in the manner of a business's operation can transform a previously permissible use into an actionable nuisance. This precedent requires courts to conduct a fact-specific inquiry into the defendant's conduct and its actual impact, ensuring that industrial operators remain accountable for unreasonable interference with neighboring properties.
