Case Title: Wood v. Wood

Citation: 166 Vt. 608, 693 A.2d 673

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1997-02-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
Wood v. Wood  (95-089); 166 Vt. 608; 693 A.2d 673

[Filed 18-Feb-1997]

                               ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 95-089

                            NOVEMBER TERM, 1996

Michael and Nancy Wood, et al.       }     APPEALED FROM:
                                     }
                                     }
     v.                              }     Windsor Superior Court
                                     }
Marc Wood                            }
                                     }     DOCKET NO. S226-91WrC

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       In this nuisance action, plaintiffs Michael and Nancy Wood, Richard
  White, Richelle, Sandra and Todd McKenney and Andrew Campbell appeal from a
  jury verdict in favor of defendant Marc Wood.  Plaintiffs contend the jury
  was improperly instructed on the elements of nuisance.  In addition
  plaintiff Michael Wood appeals a jury award against him for $1000 actual
  damages and $20,000 punitive damages on defendant's counterclaim for
  slander, alleging there was no evidence of actual harm.  Defendant
  cross-appeals an order granting plaintiffs injunctive relief.  We affirm
  the nuisance judgment, reverse the slander award, and vacate the order for
  injunctive relief.

       Defendant owns a pig farm on property adjacent to plaintiffs Michael
  and Nancy Wood and Richard White.  The McKenneys and Andrew Campbell were
  all tenants on defendant's farm at one time or another.  Plaintiffs brought
  a nuisance action against defendant, claiming that the odor, flies, and
  vermin emanating from defendant's farm unreasonably interfered with the use
  and enjoyment of their property.  Defendant filed a counterclaim alleging
  slander against Michael Wood for driving away business.  The jury returned
  special verdicts, finding that the pig farm was not a nuisance to
  plaintiffs, and that Michael Wood had slandered defendant.  At the
  conclusion of the trial, the court issued an injunction ordering that
  defendant limit the number of breeding sows he could have on the farm to
  seventy-five.  The order also required defendant to renovate his barn and
  landscape his property within a reasonable amount of time so that the barn
  could house all the livestock, ventilate odor out the top of the barn,
  remove manure every ten days, and control waste water runoff.

                           I. Nuisance Instruction

       Plaintiffs contend the court erred in instructing that nuisance must
  be intentional, that is, that plaintiff must have intended to interfere
  with the use and enjoyment of plaintiffs' property. Although plaintiffs'
  counsel objected to the instruction prior to the court's charge to the
  jury, he failed to renew the objection at the conclusion of the charge. 
  Accordingly, the issue was not properly preserved for review on appeal.

       The law on this point is clear.  This Court has explicitly held that
  an objection following jury instructions is necessary to preserve the issue
  for appeal.  Winey v. William E. Dailey, Inc., 161 Vt. 129, 137-38,