Lexplug logoLexplug

Smith v. JERSEY CENT. POWER

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
421 N.J. Super. 374, 24 A.3d 300 (2011)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A defendant may be held liable for creating a private nuisance, which is an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of land, even if a jury finds that the defendant was not negligent. Liability for nuisance can be based on an intentional and unreasonable invasion, which occurs when a defendant continues conduct after knowing it is causing harm.


Facts:

  • Gary and Eileen Smith and their three children lived in a single-family home in Brick, New Jersey.
  • In July 2002, Gary and Eileen Smith began experiencing electric shocks when they touched the water in their backyard hot tub while barefoot.
  • An electrician determined the source of the electricity was not within the Smiths' house.
  • Investigators from Jersey Central Power & Light Company (JCP&L) concluded that the shocks were caused by high levels of neutral-to-earth voltage (NEV) originating from JCP&L's electrical distribution system.
  • A JCP&L investigator advised the Smiths to always wear shoes when outside and to avoid touching anything metal.
  • Fearing for their family's safety, the Smiths dismantled their backyard pool and swing set, stopped using their yard, and built a second-story fiberglass deck for their children to play on.
  • JCP&L undertook extensive efforts over several years in an attempt to correct the NEV problem affecting the Smiths' property.

Procedural Posture:

  • Gary and Eileen Smith sued Jersey Central Power & Light Company (JCP&L) in a New Jersey trial court.
  • The complaint asserted claims for negligence, nuisance, trespass, inverse condemnation, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
  • At the close of the plaintiffs' case, the trial court dismissed the inverse condemnation claim.
  • The case proceeded to a jury trial on the remaining claims.
  • The jury returned a verdict finding JCP&L was not liable for negligence, trespass, or negligent infliction of emotional distress.
  • The jury found JCP&L liable for nuisance and awarded the Smiths $145,000 for property damage and $50,000 for interference with the use of their property.
  • The Smiths (as Appellants) appealed the dismissal of their inverse condemnation claim to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
  • JCP&L (as Cross-Appellant) appealed the nuisance verdict to the same court, arguing it was inconsistent with the jury's no-negligence finding.

Locked

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 jury's finding that a defendant was not negligent preclude a finding that the defendant is liable for creating a private nuisance?


Opinions:

Majority - Skillman, J.A.D.

No, a jury's finding that a defendant was not negligent does not preclude a finding that the defendant is liable for private nuisance. The court explained that negligence and nuisance are distinct torts. Negligence is based on a lack of proper care, while nuisance focuses on the unreasonableness of the interference with the use and enjoyment of land. Citing the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 822, the court noted that nuisance can be established if an invasion of another's interest in land is 'intentional and unreasonable.' An invasion is considered 'intentional' if the defendant knows it is resulting or is substantially certain to result from the conduct. Even if the initial invasion was unintentional, once JCP&L became aware that its system was causing the NEV problem and continued its operations, further invasions were intentional. The interference is 'unreasonable' under § 826(b) if the harm is serious and the cost of compensation would not make the activity unfeasible. Therefore, the jury could consistently find that JCP&L's conduct was not negligent (i.e., it met the standard of care for a utility), but that it created an intentional nuisance by continuing to operate its system knowing it was causing serious harm to the Smiths, for which it must provide compensation.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the critical distinction between the torts of negligence and nuisance in New Jersey law. It clarifies that a defendant's adherence to a standard of care is not a complete defense to a nuisance claim. By adopting the Restatement's view of 'intentional' nuisance, the court establishes that knowledge of ongoing harm is sufficient to create liability, even for a socially useful enterprise like a power company. This ruling provides a stronger avenue for property owners to seek compensation for persistent interference with their property, shifting the focus from the defendant's conduct (the standard of care) to the impact on the plaintiff (the unreasonableness of the interference).

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Smith v. JERSEY CENT. POWER (2011)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"