Varjabedian v. City of Madera
572 P.2d 43, 20 Cal. 3d 285, 142 Cal. Rptr. 429 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A property owner may have a cognizable claim for inverse condemnation where intangible intrusions from a public project, such as noxious odors, cause a direct, peculiar, and substantial burden on the property, even in the absence of a physical invasion or trespass.
Facts:
- Michael and Judith Ann Varjabedian purchased an 80-acre vineyard in Madera County.
- In 1971, the Varjabedians and their three children moved onto the property.
- In 1972, the City of Madera began operating a new sewage treatment plant located approximately 600 feet from the Varjabedians' residence.
- The plant immediately began emitting noxious, septic odors that prevailing winds carried directly onto the Varjabedians' property.
- The Varjabedians complained repeatedly to city officials for over a year about the odors, which were at times 'horrible' and caused physical reactions like nausea and burning eyes.
- Despite assurances from the city that it was making corrective efforts, the odors persisted, interfering with the family's comfortable enjoyment of their home and property.
- Michael Varjabedian began keeping a detailed log of the occurrence and intensity of the odors.
Procedural Posture:
- The Varjabedian family sued the City of Madera in a California superior court (trial court).
- The complaint alleged four causes of action: negligence, nuisance, maintenance of a dangerous condition, and inverse condemnation.
- At the start of trial, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the negligence and dangerous condition claims.
- The trial court granted the City of Madera's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the inverse condemnation cause of action.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial solely on the nuisance theory.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Varjabedians, awarding damages totaling approximately $73,000.
- The City of Madera appealed the judgment on the nuisance verdict, and the Varjabedians cross-appealed the trial court's dismissal of their inverse condemnation 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 a property owner have a viable claim for inverse condemnation when a government-operated facility, without physically damaging the property, produces intangible intrusions such as noxious odors that cause a direct, peculiar, and substantial burden on the property, thereby diminishing its use and market value?
Opinions:
Majority - Mosk, J.
Yes, a property owner can state a claim for inverse condemnation under these circumstances. The California Constitution requires just compensation when private property is 'taken or damaged for public use,' and physical damage is not an invariable prerequisite for compensation. When a public improvement inflicts a 'direct, peculiar, and substantial' burden on a property through recurring intangible intrusions like noxious odors, it may constitute a compensable damaging. This principle is guided by the policy of distributing the loss inflicted upon an individual by a public improvement throughout the community. Citing 'Richards v. Washington Terminal Co.,' the court reasoned that if the Varjabedians can demonstrate they were 'singled out' to suffer the detrimental environmental effects because their property was directly in the path of the odors, their claim for inverse condemnation is viable. The trial court therefore erred in dismissing this claim on the grounds that there was no physical damage. The court also affirmed the nuisance verdict, holding that a general statutory authorization for a public work does not grant immunity from nuisance liability unless the statute expressly authorizes the specific act constituting the nuisance.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadened the scope of inverse condemnation in California by confirming that intangible, non-trespassory invasions can constitute a 'damaging' of private property under the state constitution. It established that plaintiffs do not need to show physical damage or encroachment to recover for a loss in property value caused by governmental activity. By adopting the 'direct, peculiar, and substantial burden' standard from 'Richards v. Washington Terminal Co.,' the court created a framework for analyzing claims based on nuisances like odor, noise, and smoke. This precedent places a greater responsibility on government entities to consider and mitigate the external impacts of public projects on neighboring properties, as they can be held liable for significant diminutions in value even without a physical taking.
