Wheat v. Freeman Coal Mining Corp.
23 Ill. App. 3d 14, 319 N.E.2d 290 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An intentional invasion of another's interest in the use and enjoyment of land is unreasonable, and thus an actionable nuisance, when the gravity of the harm outweighs the utility of the actor's conduct. The measure of damages in such a case is not the diminution in the property's market value, but the discomfort and deprivation of the use and comforts of the home.
Facts:
- Since 1952, Leon and Helen Wheat owned and resided on a 37.5-acre farm.
- Around 1962, Freeman Coal Mining Corporation began operating its Orient No. 5 mine on land adjacent to the Wheats' property.
- Freeman Coal constructed a pond for washing coal, building a retaining wall from mining refuse, known as a 'gob pile'.
- Between 1963 and 1966, the mine's operations caused large amounts of coal dust and smoke to be carried by the wind onto the Wheats' property.
- The coal dust blackened the exterior of the Wheats' house, infested their food, clothing, and furniture, and contaminated their water supply.
- The gob pile contained combustible material that burned continuously, emitting noxious gases and foul odors which permeated the Wheats' property.
- Chemically contaminated water from the defendant's pond also flowed onto the Wheats' land, damaging their soil.
- The Wheats ultimately moved away from the property in 1966 due to the conditions.
Procedural Posture:
- Leon and Helen Wheat sued Freeman Coal Mining Corporation in the circuit court of Franklin County, alleging nuisance and negligence.
- The defendant's affirmative defense, alleging that the plaintiffs assumed the risk by living in a coal-mining area, was struck by the trial court.
- At the close of their evidence, the trial court permitted the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to claim damages for loss of use and enjoyment rather than for diminution in property value.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding them $12,000 in damages.
- The defendant's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied by the trial court.
- The defendant, Freeman Coal Mining Corporation, appealed the judgment to the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District.
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 operation of a coal mine that emits substantial quantities of coal dust, smoke, and noxious gases onto adjacent residential property, causing physical damage and significant discomfort to the residents, constitute an intentional and unreasonable nuisance for which damages may be recovered?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Eberspacher
Yes. The operation of the coal mine constitutes an intentional and unreasonable nuisance. The court, adopting the Restatement of Torts § 822, held that an invasion is 'intentional' if the defendant knows that the harm is resulting or is substantially certain to result from its conduct. Freeman Coal admitted that dust and smoke were incidents of mining, and was informed of the damage to the Wheats, satisfying the intent requirement. The question of 'unreasonableness' is particularly suited for a jury, which must weigh the gravity of the harm against the utility of the defendant's conduct. Here, disinterested witnesses provided ample evidence of substantial physical damage and continuous, severe discomfort, distinguishing this case from others involving only occasional, minor annoyances. Because the evidence of physical injury and loss of enjoyment was substantial, the issue of unreasonableness was properly submitted to the jury. The court also affirmed that the correct measure of damages is for the loss of use and enjoyment of the home, not the property's fair market value, and that a plaintiff moving to an area known for mining does not, by itself, bar recovery for nuisance.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the balancing test central to private nuisance law, confirming that even a lawful and socially useful business can be held liable if its operations cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with a neighbor's property rights. It clarifies that the determination of 'unreasonableness' is a fact-intensive question for the jury, with evidence of physical damage and significant personal discomfort being critical factors. The case solidifies the legal principle in Illinois that damages for nuisance are measured by the loss of comfort and enjoyment, protecting the personal, residential interests of homeowners rather than just the economic value of their property. It also limits the 'coming to the nuisance' defense, particularly when the plaintiff's residence predates the nuisance-creating activity.
