Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co.
108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Where a developer knowingly brings a residential population to a pre-existing, lawful business, thereby creating a public nuisance, the developer may be required to indemnify the enjoined business for the reasonable costs of moving or shutting down.
Facts:
- Farming began in the Maricopa County, Arizona area around 1911, and the area remained primarily agricultural for decades.
- In 1956, Spur Industries' predecessors in interest established a cattle feedlot in a rural part of the county well-suited for such operations.
- In May 1959, Del E. Webb Development Co. purchased 20,000 acres of nearby farmland to build a large retirement community, Sun City, choosing the location partly for its low land prices.
- Spur Industries, Inc. purchased the feedlot in 1960 and began expanding its cattle feeding operations.
- Del E. Webb began selling homes in Sun City in 1960 and continued to expand the development southward, directly towards Spur's feedlot.
- By 1963, Del E. Webb's management knew that odors from the feedlot were causing 'sales resistance' but made a business decision to continue developing toward the nuisance until sales became impossible.
- By 1967, Webb's development had expanded to within 500 feet of Spur's operation, where Spur was feeding 20,000 to 30,000 head of cattle, creating significant odor and fly problems for residents.
Procedural Posture:
- Del E. Webb Development Co. sued Spur Industries, Inc. in the state trial court, alleging the feedlot was a public nuisance and seeking to enjoin its operation.
- The trial court found that Spur's operation was a public nuisance.
- The trial court entered a judgment permanently enjoining Spur Industries, Inc. from operating the feedlot.
- Spur Industries, Inc., as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Arizona.
- Del E. Webb Development Co., as the appellee, filed a cross-appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
When a lawful business is enjoined from operating because it has become a public nuisance due to a residential development expanding towards it, must the developer who created the residential community indemnify the business for its losses?
Opinions:
Majority - Cameron, Vice Chief Justice
Yes, the developer must indemnify the business for the reasonable cost of moving or shutting down. Although the feedlot's operation became an enjoinable public nuisance with respect to the residents of Sun City, it was a lawful enterprise that was established long before the residential development. The doctrine of 'coming to the nuisance' would normally bar relief for a party like Del Webb, who knowingly developed land next to an existing agricultural operation. However, the interests of the innocent residents who purchased homes from Webb must be protected, and they could have successfully sued to enjoin the nuisance. The court balanced the equities, concluding that Spur is required to move not because of any wrongdoing on its part, but for the public good. Because Del Webb is not blameless and created the conflict by bringing the residents to the nuisance, it is equitable to require Webb to pay for the damages it caused Spur. This novel remedy is limited to cases where a developer foreseeably brings a population into a previously agricultural or industrial area, thereby making a lawful business a nuisance.
Analysis:
This case is significant for creating the novel 'indemnification' remedy in nuisance law, which serves as an equitable compromise in 'coming to the nuisance' scenarios. It modifies traditional doctrine by allowing an injunction to protect the public interest while simultaneously holding the developer who created the conflict financially responsible. This precedent has a major impact on land use law, especially in cases of urban sprawl, by placing a duty on developers to account for the economic harm their projects cause to pre-existing, lawful businesses. Future courts may apply this reasoning to balance the interests of encroaching residential communities against established industrial or agricultural operations.
