Morgan v. High Penn Oil Co.
1953 N.C. LEXIS 427, 77 S.E.2d 682, 238 N.C. 185 (1953)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A lawful business activity that intentionally and unreasonably causes a substantial nontrespassory invasion of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of land constitutes an actionable private nuisance, regardless of the degree of care or skill exercised to avoid the injury.
Facts:
- The plaintiffs owned and occupied a nine-acre property which included their home.
- On adjoining land, the High Penn Oil Company operated an oil refinery.
- The refinery continuously emitted noxious gases and odors as part of its normal operations.
- These gases and odors escaped onto the plaintiffs' property.
- The emissions substantially impaired the plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their land and home.
- For a period of time, the Southern Oil Transportation Company owned the land where the refinery was located and knowingly permitted the High Penn Oil Company to conduct its operations there.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs filed a civil action against High Penn Oil Company and Southern Oil Transportation Company in the trial court.
- At the close of the plaintiffs' evidence at trial, both defendants moved for a compulsory nonsuit (a motion to dismiss the case).
- The trial court denied both motions.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.
- Both defendants, High Penn Oil Company and Southern Oil Transportation Company, appealed the judgment to 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 lawful business that intentionally and unreasonably causes noxious gases and odors to invade a neighbor's land constitute an actionable private nuisance, even without proof of negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Ervin, J.
Yes. A lawful business constitutes an actionable private nuisance if it intentionally and unreasonably invades another's use and enjoyment of their land, even without a showing of negligence. The court clarified that negligence and nuisance are distinct fields of tort liability; while an act can be both, a nuisance can exist without any negligence. The central principle of private nuisance is the ancient maxim 'Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas' (so use your own property as not to injure that of another). An invasion is considered 'intentional' if the actor knows it is resulting, or is substantially certain to result, from their conduct. When a business, like the High Penn Oil Company's refinery, knows that its operations are producing noxious fumes that invade a neighbor's property, the invasion is intentional. If this intentional invasion is also unreasonable and substantially impairs the neighbor's property enjoyment, the business is liable for nuisance regardless of how carefully it operates its facility.
Analysis:
This case is significant for firmly separating the torts of nuisance and negligence. It establishes that for an intentional private nuisance, the legal analysis focuses on the reasonableness of the interference with the plaintiff's rights, not the reasonableness of the defendant's conduct (i.e., whether the defendant exercised due care). This precedent prevents lawful but inherently invasive enterprises from avoiding liability merely by demonstrating they are not negligent. The decision reinforces property rights by holding that even careful actors are liable when they knowingly and unreasonably cause substantial harm to a neighbor's ability to use and enjoy their land.
