Rankin v. FPL ENERGY, LLC
266 S.W.3d 506, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 6398, 174 Oil & Gas Rep. 234 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Texas law, a private nuisance claim cannot be based on purely aesthetic complaints, such as the unsightliness of a lawful activity on neighboring property. An emotional response to the loss of a view, absent a physical invasion of the plaintiff's property by light, sound, odor, or some foreign substance, is insufficient to constitute an actionable nuisance.
Facts:
- FPL Energy, LLC (FPL) constructed and operated the Horse Hollow Wind Farm, which included numerous 400-foot-tall wind turbines, in southwest Taylor County.
- Several individuals and a corporation (Plaintiffs) owned land neighboring the wind farm.
- Plaintiffs claimed the presence of the numerous large turbines permanently diminished the area's scenic beauty.
- The change in the landscape caused Plaintiffs emotional distress, which they alleged interfered with the use and enjoyment of their property.
- One plaintiff, Linda Brasher, stated that she and her husband canceled their plans to build and operate a bed and breakfast on their property in response to the wind farm's construction.
- Plaintiffs also complained about the turbines' blinking lights, the shadow flicker effect they created, and their operational noises.
Procedural Posture:
- Several individuals and one corporation (Plaintiffs) sued FPL Energy (FPL) in a Texas trial court, asserting claims for public and private nuisance.
- FPL filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that a nuisance claim cannot be based on the wind farm's aesthetic impact.
- The trial court granted FPL's motion in part, dismissing all nuisance claims to the extent they were based on aesthetic considerations.
- The remaining private nuisance claims, based on non-aesthetic issues like noise, proceeded to a jury trial.
- The jury found in favor of FPL, and the trial court entered a take-nothing judgment against the Plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs (as appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Eastland, challenging the partial summary judgment ruling.
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 activity, such as the operation of a wind farm, constitute a private nuisance under Texas law based on its negative aesthetic impact and the resulting emotional distress to neighboring landowners?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rick Strange
No. A lawful activity does not constitute a private nuisance based on its negative aesthetic impact. Texas law does not recognize a cause of action for nuisance based on an emotional reaction to a neighbor's lawful use of their property, absent some physical invasion. The court reasoned that historically, Texas courts have consistently rejected nuisance claims based merely on aesthetical-based complaints. Citing precedents like Shamburger v. Scheurrer, the court affirmed the principle that 'the law will not declare a thing a nuisance because it is unsightly or disfigured.' Successful nuisance actions typically involve a physical, non-trespassory invasion of the plaintiff's property by light, sound, odor, or a foreign substance. The court characterized the plaintiffs' harm as an emotional response to the loss of their view, which alone is insufficient to sustain a nuisance claim for a lawful activity. To allow such a claim would be a 'recipe for legal chaos' because notions of beauty are subjective and would effectively grant landowners a veto over their neighbors' lawful use of land, which is a function of zoning, not tort law.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional, narrow definition of private nuisance in Texas, firmly rejecting the expansion of the doctrine to include purely aesthetic harm. The ruling establishes a significant barrier for plaintiffs challenging large-scale developments like wind or solar farms based on their visual impact, effectively channeling such disputes towards legislative or zoning bodies rather than the courts. By distinguishing between actionable physical invasions (e.g., noise, light) and non-actionable emotional responses to visual changes, the court solidifies a bright-line rule that prioritizes a landowner's right to lawful use of their property over a neighbor's interest in an unchanged view. This precedent will likely be cited to defeat similar nuisance claims against other forms of development deemed unsightly by neighbors.
