McCarty v. . Natural Carbonic Gas Co.
1907 N.Y. LEXIS 1099, 189 N.Y. 40, 81 N.E. 549 (1907)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A lawful business's use of its property constitutes an actionable private nuisance if that use is unreasonable under all the circumstances and causes material injury to a neighbor's property and the enjoyment thereof.
Facts:
- For several years, the plaintiff owned and occupied a dwelling house in a country district suitable for country homes.
- The defendant, Natural Carbonic Gas Co., subsequently erected a factory 840 feet from the plaintiff's residence to manufacture carbonic acid gas.
- The factory operated continuously, except Sundays, burning two and a half to four tons of soft coal daily.
- The factory's two 90-foot smokestacks continuously emitted thick, black smoke.
- Depending on the wind and atmospheric conditions, the smoke would envelop the plaintiff's house, discoloring its exterior with soot and causing discomfort to the plaintiff and his family.
- The defendant could achieve the same manufacturing results by using anthracite (hard) coal, which would eliminate the smoke problem, though at a greater expense.
- Another similar factory in the same neighborhood used anthracite coal and had never caused any annoyance.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant in a trial court, seeking an injunction and damages for nuisance.
- The trial court found for the plaintiff, awarding $818 in damages and enjoining the defendant from burning soft coal.
- The defendant appealed to the Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division modified the judgment by reducing damages by $18 but otherwise unanimously affirmed the trial court's decision.
- The defendant, as appellant, then appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest 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:
Does a factory's use of soft coal, which emits large volumes of black smoke that damage a neighboring residential property and cause discomfort to its occupants, constitute an unreasonable use of its property and therefore an actionable nuisance when a cleaner but more expensive fuel is available?
Opinions:
Majority - Vane, J.
Yes. A factory's use of soft coal that emits damaging smoke constitutes an unreasonable use and an actionable nuisance when less harmful alternatives exist. The law of private nuisance is one of degree, turning on whether the defendant's use of its property is reasonable under all circumstances. While a lawful business is not a nuisance per se, it becomes a nuisance in fact if its operation results in substantial injury to a neighbor. Here, the defendant's use of soft coal was not necessary for its operation, as a cleaner alternative (anthracite coal) was available. The fact that the alternative is more expensive is not a defense; it is better that a business's profits be somewhat reduced than for a homeowner to be compelled to abandon their home. Because the smoke caused material discomfort and financial injury, the defendant's use of its property was unreasonable and constituted a nuisance.
Dissenting - O'Brien, J.
No. The factory's use of soft coal is a reasonable use of its property and does not constitute an actionable nuisance. The defendant is engaged in a lawful business, and there is no finding of negligence. The plaintiff has not suffered any injury to health or permanent damage to property; the complaint is one of personal discomfort that is occasional and incidental to living in a locality with industry. Forcing the defendant to use more expensive fuel imposes a significant financial burden that could destroy the business. This is a case of damnum absque injuria—a loss that does not give rise to an action for damages—as residents in organized communities must suffer some annoyance and inconvenience from each other for the benefit of all.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the flexible, fact-specific 'reasonable use' standard in private nuisance law. It establishes that a lawful business can still be deemed a nuisance if its operations are unreasonable in a particular context, particularly when less harmful operational alternatives are available, even at a higher cost. The decision prioritizes the right to the quiet enjoyment of residential property over a business's interest in maximizing profit through cheaper, more polluting methods, thereby influencing future environmental and land-use litigation.
