Winget v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.
242 S.C. 152, 130 S.E.2d 363 (1963)
Rule of Law:
While a lawful business operating in a properly zoned area cannot be held liable as a nuisance for a decline in adjacent property values due solely to its location, it may be liable for damages if its manner of operation unreasonably interferes with the neighbors' enjoyment of their property.
Facts:
- The plaintiffs' home is located in Sumter, South Carolina, adjacent to a grocery supermarket operated by Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.
- The property for the supermarket was located in an area zoned by the City of Sumter for retail business.
- Winn-Dixie successfully petitioned the city's Zoning Board to rezone an additional 50-foot portion of its lot adjacent to the plaintiffs' property from residential to retail use, a hearing which one of the plaintiffs attended in opposition.
- After the rezoning was approved and the supermarket was built, it began operations on October 1, 1959.
- Plaintiffs alleged that the supermarket's operations created a nuisance through late-night noise from delivery trucks, glaring floodlights, damaging exhaust fans blowing onto their property, and obnoxious odors and trash from garbage accumulation.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs sued Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. and John Lloyd in a state trial court, seeking damages and an injunction for creating a private nuisance.
- At the conclusion of the trial, the defendants (Winn-Dixie and Lloyd) moved for a directed verdict, which the trial court refused.
- The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, awarding $5,000 in actual damages.
- The trial judge denied the plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed the jury's damage award to this court, making the plaintiffs the appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is testimony regarding the depreciation of property value due solely to the lawful location of an adjacent business, rather than its manner of operation, admissible to prove damages in a private nuisance action?
Opinions:
Majority - Lewis, Justice
No. Testimony of property depreciation due solely to the lawful location of a business is irrelevant and inadmissible in a nuisance action; damages must be based on the specific manner of operation. A lawful business located in an area properly zoned for its use cannot constitute a nuisance based on its location alone. To allow recovery for depreciation in property value resulting solely from the location would effectively nullify zoning ordinances. While the location was lawful, the plaintiffs did present sufficient evidence that the manner of the supermarket's operation—such as glaring lights, fans blowing on their property, and escaping trash—could constitute a nuisance, creating a valid issue for the jury. However, the trial court erred by admitting the testimony of a witness, R. E. Graham, whose valuation of the plaintiffs' property depreciation was based entirely on the mere presence of the Winn-Dixie ('the moving in of this Winn-Dixie') and not on any damages resulting from its method of operation. Because this testimony was irrelevant to the only proper issue in the case and was prejudicial to the defendants, its admission constituted a reversible error requiring a new trial.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical distinction between a nuisance arising from the location of a business (nuisance per se) and one arising from its conduct (nuisance in fact). It strongly upholds the power of zoning ordinances by immunizing businesses from liability for diminished property values that are a natural consequence of commercial activity in a commercially zoned area. This precedent forces plaintiffs in nuisance actions to specifically link their alleged damages to the defendant's unreasonable operational conduct, rather than relying on a general decline in property value due to the business's presence. This raises the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs and provides a significant legal shield for businesses operating within the bounds of local zoning laws.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Winget v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. (1963)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"