Wales Trucking Company v. Stallcup
474 S.W.2d 184, 3 ERC 1678, 2 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20142 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The temporary, lawful, and non-negligent use of a public road for a necessary public project does not constitute an actionable nuisance giving rise to liability for damages, even if it creates substantial inconvenience like dust for adjoining landowners.
Facts:
- The City of Wichita Falls hired a general contractor to build a water pipeline, and the contractor subcontracted with Wales Trucking Company to transport large concrete pipes to the construction site.
- For approximately four months, Wales's heavy trucks used an unpaved county road that ran in front of the home of Mr. and Mrs. Stallcup.
- The truck traffic, consisting of about 825 round trips, generated significant amounts of dust that coated the Stallcups' house and property.
- The dust aggravated the respiratory condition of the Stallcups' daughter.
- After Mr. Stallcup complained, Wales Trucking Co. attempted to use an alternate paved route.
- A county commissioner prohibited Wales's trucks from using the paved road due to concerns about road damage, forcing the trucks back onto the unpaved road past the Stallcups' house.
- Wales Trucking Co.'s use of the road was lawful; the trucks complied with all licensing, load limits, and traffic regulations, and were not operated negligently.
Procedural Posture:
- The Stallcups sued Wales Trucking Company in a Texas trial court, alleging nuisance.
- The case was submitted to a jury, which found that the defendant's use of the road constituted a nuisance and awarded damages to the Stallcups.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the Stallcups.
- Wales Trucking Company, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals.
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the Stallcups, who were the appellees.
- Wales Trucking Company then appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas for review.
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 the temporary, non-negligent, and lawful use of a public road by a trucking company for a public works project, which causes substantial dust and inconvenience to an adjoining landowner, constitute an actionable nuisance for which damages can be awarded?
Opinions:
Majority - Greenhill, J.
No. The temporary, non-negligent, and lawful use of a public road under these circumstances does not constitute an actionable nuisance. The court distinguished this situation from classic nuisance cases, which typically involve a continuous or permanent interference emanating from a defendant's private property, such as a carbon black plant or slaughterhouse. Here, the activity was conducted on a public road, which exists primarily for travel and transportation, and was temporary in nature, lasting only four months for a necessary public water supply project. The court reasoned that while the use of a public highway can become a nuisance under extreme circumstances, the defendant's conduct here was not so unreasonable as to create liability without any finding of fault, negligence, or unlawful action.
Analysis:
This decision narrows the scope of 'nuisance without fault' in Texas by distinguishing between permanent activities on private land and temporary activities on public ways. It provides legal protection to contractors and businesses engaged in temporary public works projects, insulating them from nuisance claims arising from ordinary, albeit inconvenient, side effects like dust, provided their actions are lawful and non-negligent. The ruling establishes a higher threshold for nuisance liability in such cases, emphasizing that the primary purpose of public roads is transportation and that some level of inconvenience to adjacent landowners is not actionable. Future cases involving temporary disruptions from public projects will likely require a showing of negligence, unlawful conduct, or a far more extreme and unreasonable interference to succeed on a nuisance theory.
