Pestey v. Cushman
259 Conn. 345, 788 A. 2d 496 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To recover damages in a common-law private nuisance action, a plaintiff must show that the defendant's conduct was the proximate cause of an unreasonable interference with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of their property. The focus is on the unreasonableness of the interference, not necessarily the unreasonableness of the defendant's conduct itself, and is determined by balancing the parties' interests.
Facts:
- The plaintiffs, James and Joan Pestey, owned a home along Route 87 in North Franklin.
- The defendants, the Cushmans, operated a large dairy farm on the opposite side of the road, approximately one-third of a mile from the Pesteys' property.
- In 1990, the Cushmans constructed a large barn and a manure storage pit.
- Beginning in 1991, the Pesteys noticed typical farm odors, which over time became more pungent and acquired a sharp, burnt smell.
- In 1997, the Cushmans installed an anaerobic digestion system to process manure.
- Following the installation of the digester, the odors became more acrid, smelling of sulphur and sewage, allegedly because the system was undersized or overloaded.
- The odors were at times so strong they would awaken the Pesteys during the night, forcing them to close their windows.
Procedural Posture:
- James and Joan Pestey sued Nathan R. Cushman, Nathan P. Cushman and Cushman Farms Limited Partnership in a Connecticut trial court for private nuisance, seeking damages and other relief.
- A jury heard the private nuisance claim and returned a verdict for the Pesteys, awarding them $100,000 in damages.
- The trial court denied the defendants' post-trial motions to set aside the verdict, for a new trial, and for remittitur.
- The trial court rendered judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict.
- The defendants appealed the judgment to the Connecticut Appellate Court.
- The Connecticut Supreme Court transferred the appeal to itself before the Appellate Court could hear it.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court properly instruct the jury on the unreasonableness element of a private nuisance claim by asking it to weigh multiple factors concerning the defendant's use of their property?
Opinions:
Majority - Vertefeuille, J.
Yes. The trial court's instruction was proper because, when read as a whole along with the jury interrogatories, it adequately guided the jury to weigh the conflicting interests of the parties. The court clarifies that the proper inquiry in a private nuisance case is whether the defendant's conduct caused an unreasonable interference with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of their property. The court formally adopts the principles of § 822 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, shifting the focus from the 'unreasonable use' of the defendant's property to the 'unreasonable interference' with the plaintiff's property. This requires a balancing of interests under the circumstances of the case. While the trial court's charge and one of the interrogatories were framed in terms of 'unreasonable use,' another interrogatory correctly asked if the farm produced odors that 'unreasonably interfered' with the plaintiffs' enjoyment of their property. Therefore, despite the confusing state of prior law, the instructions and interrogatories together properly informed the jury of the necessary elements and provided adequate guidance.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies Connecticut's private nuisance doctrine by formally adopting the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 822 framework. It shifts the legal focus from the reasonableness of the defendant's conduct to the reasonableness of the interference suffered by the plaintiff. This change establishes that a defendant engaging in a lawful and socially useful activity may still be liable for nuisance if the resulting harm to a neighbor is substantial and unreasonable. The case provides a clear, modern balancing test for future nuisance claims, emphasizing the impact on the plaintiff's property rights rather than the nature of the defendant's activity in a vacuum.
Unlock the full brief for Pestey v. Cushman