Page County Appliance Center, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc.
347 N.W.2d 171 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Interference with the use of property caused by electronic radiation from a lawful business can constitute a private nuisance. A plaintiff's use of property is not considered 'hypersensitive' as a matter of law if it involves common and ubiquitous technology, such as television displays; whether the use is hypersensitive under the circumstances is a question of fact for the jury.
Facts:
- Page County Appliance Center, Inc. (Appliance Center), owned by John Pearson, had sold televisions and other appliances since 1953 without any television reception issues.
- In January 1980, ITT Electronic Travel Services, Inc. (ITT) leased a computer, manufactured by Honeywell, Inc. (Honeywell), to Central Travel Service, a business located near the Appliance Center.
- Shortly after the computer's installation, the picture on Appliance Center's display televisions became severely distorted, making them difficult to watch.
- Pearson traced the interference to the computer at Central Travel, and both ITT and Honeywell later conceded their computer was the cause due to leaking radiation.
- Honeywell technicians made repeated, unsuccessful trips to fix the computer, which they determined was a design problem, not a service issue.
- A Honeywell supervisor told Pearson that Honeywell was 'way over budget' on the computer and that 'if you don’t like it, you can move.'
- A Honeywell engineer later told Pearson he would not have come to fix the problem at all if Appliance Center had not initiated a lawsuit.
- The interference was partially corrected in the fall of 1980 and fully resolved in May 1982, more than two years after it began.
Procedural Posture:
- Page County Appliance Center, Inc. sued Honeywell, Inc., and ITT Electronic Travel Services, Inc. in an Iowa trial court for nuisance and tortious interference with prospective business relations.
- The jury at the trial court found for Appliance Center against both defendants, awarding $71,000 in compensatory damages and $150,000 in punitive damages.
- ITT filed a cross-claim against Honeywell for indemnification.
- Following the jury trial, the trial court found in favor of ITT on its cross-claim, awarding it full indemnity from Honeywell for the entire judgment amount plus fees and costs.
- Honeywell and ITT, as appellants, appealed the judgment in favor of Appliance Center to the Supreme Court of Iowa. Honeywell also appealed the indemnity judgment awarded to ITT, the appellee on that claim.
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 electronic radiation from a business's computer that interferes with a neighboring business's television displays constitute an actionable private nuisance, even if displaying televisions could be considered a hypersensitive use of property?
Opinions:
Majority - Reynoldson, Chief Justice
Yes. Electronic radiation from a neighboring computer can constitute an actionable private nuisance, and the question of whether the affected use of property is hypersensitive is a factual determination for the jury. A nuisance is an unreasonable obstruction to the free use and enjoyment of property. The core test is the reasonableness of the defendant's conduct based on the manner, place, and circumstances of the operation. While a plaintiff cannot render an otherwise harmless act a nuisance by putting their land to an 'unusually sensitive use,' the court rejected the idea that displaying televisions is such a use as a matter of law. Unlike the rare outdoor theater screens cited in other cases, televisions are ubiquitous in modern society. Therefore, the presence of televisions is not an abnormal condition, and the issue of hypersensitivity, along with other factors of reasonableness, should be submitted to the jury. The court also found that a jury could reasonably determine that both ITT, as the computer's owner and lessor, and Honeywell, as its manufacturer and servicer, substantially participated in creating and maintaining the nuisance.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for adapting the traditional common law of nuisance to address intangible electronic interference from modern technology. By refusing to categorize the use of televisions as a 'hypersensitive use' as a matter of law, the court recognized that the legal standard for nuisance must evolve with societal norms and the prevalence of technology. This precedent makes it more difficult for defendants to use the hypersensitivity defense when their activities interfere with commonplace technological devices. The ruling also clarifies that multiple parties in a supply and service chain, such as a manufacturer and a lessor, can be held liable for a nuisance if they substantially participate in the activity causing it.
Unlock the full brief for Page County Appliance Center, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc.