Title: Schrupp v. Hanson

State: minnesota

Issuer: Minnesota Supreme Court

Document:

235 N.W.2d 822 (1975) Calvin SCHRUPP and Frieda Schrupp, His Wife, Appellants, v. Kermit L. HANSON and DeLoris K. Hanson, His Wife, Respondents. No. 45068. Supreme Court of Minnesota. November 7, 1975. Gault, MacKenzie, Gustafson & Litynski, Malcolm K. MacKenzie and Jerold M. Lucas, St. Peter, for appellants. Berens, Rodenberg & O'Connor and Wm. T. O'Connor, New Ulm, for respondents. Heard before OTIS, TODD, and MacLAUGHLIN, JJ., and considered and decided by the court en banc. OTIS, Justice. This is an action for damages and to enjoin as a nuisance a poultry and hog farm maintained by defendants on property adjacent to plaintiffs' residence near Gaylord in Sibley County. The jury found for defendants. *823 Plaintiffs sought a new trial on the grounds of misconduct of the jury and the court's refusal to grant plaintiff a so-called Schwartz hearing. Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 258 Minn. 325, 104 N.W.2d 301 (1960). Plaintiffs' motion was denied, and they appeal from the judgment. We reverse. Five days following the verdict, plaintiffs' counsel requested the court to grant him a Schwartz hearing and in support of his motion filed two affidavits. The first stated in part: In a supplementary affidavit plaintiffs' attorney stated: The trial court denied the motion by an order to which the following memorandum was attached: In rendering our decision, we are handicapped by the absence of a transcript of the testimony and of the interrogation of the jury at voir dire. It is, therefore, with some hesitation we reverse. Nevertheless, the facts giving rise to this litigation strongly suggest a miscarriage of justice which may be attributable to the jury's misconceiving their duty. In 1960, plaintiffs purchased property on which they built their home. In 1968, defendants erected a structure within 100 feet of plaintiffs' dwelling on unzoned property owned by defendants. Since then defendants have operated a poultry business in the building which houses some 20,000 birds. In addition, defendants manage a hog-raising business. Plaintiffs claim that the odors vented from the building are intolerable and are aggravated by the smell of boiling dead chickens for use as hog feed. It is argued by defendants that poultry raisers in Sibley County conduct a business amounting to $1,800,000 a year, and that the economic impact on defendant and others similarly situated was a valid consideration for the jury to weigh in determining whether or not plaintiff was entitled to relief. Be that as it may, if defendants' business was in fact a private nuisance as to plaintiffs' adjoining property, it seems clear that plaintiff was entitled to relief notwithstanding the fact that this result would have some adverse effect on the poultry business throughout the county. It was, therefore, incumbent on the trial court to conduct at least a preliminary inquiry into the validity of the hearsay charges that the jury found defendants' operation constituted a nuisance but, nevertheless, denied plaintiffs relief. What we said in Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 291 Minn. 334, 343, 191 N.W.2d 418, 424 (1971), is here pertinent: Because the jury has long since been discharged, we deem it inappropriate to conduct a belated Schwartz hearing. Accordingly, we hold that in the interests of justice a new trial is required. Reversed and remanded. No costs shall be allowed to either party.