Woodsmall v. Lost Creek Township Conservation Club, Inc.
2010 Ind. App. LEXIS 1691, 933 N.E.2d 899 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a private nuisance per accidens, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant's lawful use of property produces a condition that is naturally productive of actual physical discomfort to persons of ordinary sensibilities. A fear of harm can constitute a nuisance only if it is reasonably justified and based on more than mere speculation.
Facts:
- Lost Creek Township Conservation Club, Inc. ('Lost Creek') has operated a shooting range in a rural area of Vigo County, Indiana, since 1984.
- Phyllis Woodsmall and other nearby residents ('the Homeowners') live in the vicinity of the range.
- Shooting activities at Lost Creek increased after September 11, 2001, when local law enforcement began using the facility.
- The Homeowners reported hearing gunshots they found disturbing, with one person reporting that 'shots whizzed by' and another keeping a log of 'repeated rapid fire shots.'
- One homeowner found a spent bullet on her deck four or five days after hearing a shot, but its origin was not determined, and no property damage or physical injury was ever reported by any homeowner.
- Evidence suggested that other individuals or groups besides Lost Creek also engaged in shooting activities in the wooded area near the Homeowners' properties.
- Lost Creek's expert witness testified that the range was safe for the firearms being used and that any bullet escaping the range would lack sufficient energy to cause serious injury upon landing.
- The Homeowners' expert witness concluded it was not 'likely' but 'could potentially' happen that bullets reached Homeowner property, and recommended safety improvements rather than a cessation of activities.
Procedural Posture:
- Phyllis Woodsmall and other homeowners filed a complaint in an Indiana trial court (Vigo County) against Lost Creek Township Conservation Club, Inc.
- The Homeowners sought an injunction to abate an alleged nuisance from Lost Creek's shooting range.
- The trial court conducted a two-day bench trial.
- The trial court entered a judgment denying the Homeowners' request for an injunction, finding they had not proven their nuisance claim.
- The Homeowners (appellants) appealed the negative judgment to the Indiana Court of Appeals, arguing the judgment was contrary to law.
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 shooting range constitute a private nuisance per accidens when the evidence regarding excessive noise and safety risks is conflicting and speculative?
Opinions:
Majority - Bailey, J.
No. A shooting range does not constitute a private nuisance per accidens where the plaintiffs fail to meet their burden of proving that the activity produces actual physical discomfort to a reasonable person or a reasonably justified fear for safety. The Homeowners alleged a private nuisance per accidens, which required them to show that Lost Creek's activities produced a condition resulting in 'actual physical discomfort to persons of ordinary sensibility, tastes, and habits.' The evidence presented was conflicting and did not lead to the sole conclusion that a nuisance existed. Regarding noise, the evidence was subjective, with no decibel levels provided, and a video showed a duck swimming undisturbed during gunfire. Regarding safety, the evidence did not definitively establish that Lost Creek was the source of a hazard, as there was other shooting in the area and no homeowner had suffered injury or property damage. While a constant, reasonable fear for one's safety can constitute a nuisance, that fear must be based on more than speculation. Here, the Homeowners' fears were speculative, and their own expert only testified to the 'possibility' of errant bullets. Because the evidence was not without conflict and did not lead to the single conclusion that a nuisance existed, the trial court’s judgment was not contrary to law.
Analysis:
This case underscores the significant evidentiary burden placed on plaintiffs seeking to enjoin a lawful activity as a private nuisance per accidens. The court's decision affirms that subjective feelings of annoyance or speculative fears are insufficient; a plaintiff must present objective evidence that the interference with property enjoyment is substantial and would be considered so by a reasonable person. The ruling also highlights the deference appellate courts give to trial court findings of fact, especially when evidence and expert testimony are conflicting. This precedent makes it more difficult to succeed in nuisance claims against established operations like shooting ranges unless concrete evidence of harm or unreasonable interference can be unequivocally demonstrated.
