In th e S u p re m e Co u rt o f Ge o rg ia

De c id e d: Oc to b e r 6 , 2 0 14

S 14 A0 7 2 8 . JANS EN-NICHOLS v . COLONIAL P IP ELINE COMP ANY.

B L ACKW EL L , Ju stic e

.

Co lo n ia l P ip e lin e Co m

p a n y m a in ta in s an un de rg ro u n d liq u id p e tro le u m

p ip e lin e th a t p a sse s th ro u g h De Ka lb C o u n ty n e a r th e h o m e o f P a ig e L. Ja n se n

Nic h o ls. In Ma y a n d Ju n e 2 0 1 3

, a le a k d e te c tio n a la rm sy ste m c a u se d Co lo n ia l

to b e c o m e c o n c e rn e d th a t its p ip e lin e m ig h t h a v e b e e n c o m p ro m ise d

, a n d

Co l o n ia l twic e u se d h e lic o p te rs to in sp e c t th e p ip e lin e

. Alle g in g th a t th e se

h e lic o p te rs fle w t o o lo w o v e r h e r h o m e , Ja n se n-Nic h ols su e d Co lo n ia l fo r

tre sp a ss, n u isa n c e , n e g lig e n c e , a n d n e g lig e n c e p e r se , se e k in g m on e y d a m a ge s

a n d p e rm a n e n t in

ju n c tiv e re lie f. S h e a lso so u g h t a n in te rlo c uto ry in ju n c tio n to

p ro h ib it Co lo nia l fro m fly in g h e lic o p te rs lo w ov e r h e r h o u se fo r so lo n g a s h e r

la wsu it wa s p e n d in g

. F o llo win g two e v id e ntia ry h e a rin g s, th e tria l c o u rt d e n ie dth e m o tio n fo r a n in te rlo c u to ry in ju n c tio n , a n d Ja n se n-Nic h o ls a p p e a ls. 1 We

a ffirm

.

Ja n se n-Nic h o ls c o n te n d s th a t th e d e n ia l of a n in te rlo c u to ry in ju n c tio n wa s

e rro r be c a u se it sa n c tio n e d lo w o v e rflig h ts o f h e r h o m e , th e re b y g iv in g Co lo n ia l

a lic e n se to tre sp a ss u p o n h e r p ro p e rty

, to m a in ta in a n u isa n c e , an d to bre a c h th e

d u ty o f c a re th a t it a lle g e d ly o we s h e r in c o nn e c t i o n w i t h a e ria l p ip e lin e

in sp e c tio n s. Th a t, h owe ve r, is ju st n o t tru e

. A to rt is a to rt, a n d if a wro n g fu l a c t

is a to rt, it is n o le ss a to rt sim p ly b e c a u se n o c ou rt e n

jo in e d it. If lo w h e lic o p te r

o v e rflig h ts a m o u n t to a tre sp a ss, a n u i s a n c e , n e g lig e n c e , o r n e g lig e n c e p e r se ,

th e d e n ia l o f a n in te rlo c u to ry in ju nc tio n fo rb id d in g su c h o v e rflig h ts h a s n o

b e a r in g u p o n th e e x te n t to w h ic h th e y a re wro n g fu l o r wh e th e r on e in ju re d a s

a re su lt m ig h t re c o v e r d a m a ge s. Th e d e n ia l o f a n in j u n c tio n m e a n s o n ly th a t

su c h ov e rflig h ts a re n o t pu n ish a b le a s c o n te m

p t. Th e d e n ia l o f a n in te rlo c u to ry

in ju n c tio n in th is c a se is n o lic e nse fo r Co lo n ia l to d o a n y th in g u n la w fu l.

Wh e th e r a

n in te rlo c uto ry in

ju n c tio n is wa rra n te d is a m a tte r c om m itte d to

th e d isc re tio n o f th e tria l c o u rt. H o l t o n v

. P h y sic ia n On c o lo g y S v c s., 2 9 2 Ga

.

1 The denial of interlocutory injunctive relief i s appealable. See OCGA § 5 -6-34 (a) (4).

28 6 4

, 8 6 6 (2 ) (7 4 2 S E2 d 7 02 ) (2 0 1 3 ). In e x e rc isin g th is d isc re tio n , a tria l c o urt

g e n e ra lly m

u st c o n sid e r wh e th e r:

(1 ) th e re is a su b sta n tia l th re a t th a t th e m ov in g p a rty will su ffe r irre p a ra b le in ju ry if th e in

ju n c tio n is n o t g ra n te d ; (2 ) th e th re a te n e d
in ju ry to th e m o v in g p a rty o u t w e ig h s th e th re a te n e d h arm th a t th e in ju nc tio n m a y d o to th e p a rty b e in g e n jo in e d ; (3 ) th e re is a

su b sta n tia l lik e lih oo d th a t th e m o v in g p a rty will p re v a il o n th e

m e rits of he r c l a i m s a t tria l; a n d (4 ) g ra n tin g th e in te rlo c u to ry in ju nc tio n will n o t d isse rv e th e p u b lic in te re st.

S RB In v. S v c s. v

. Bra n c h Ba n k in g a nd Tru st Co

., 2 8 9 G a. 1

, 5 (3 ) (7 0 9 S E2 d

2 6 7 ) (2 0 1 1 ) (c ita tio n o m itte d ). Alth o u g h o ne se e kin g in te rlo c u to r y i n j u n c tiv e

re lie f ne e d n o t a l w a y s “ p r o v e a ll fo u r o f th e se fa c to rs,” id

. a t 5 n .7 (3 ), a tria l

c o u rt m u st k e e p in m in d th a t “ a n in te r l o c u to ry in ju n c tio n is a n e x tra o rd in a ry

re m e d y , a n d th e po we r to g ra n t it m u st be p ru de n tly a n d c a

u tio u sly e x e rc ise d .”

Id . a t 5 (3 ) (c ita tio n a n d p u n c tu a tio n o m itte d ).

In th is c a se , th e tria l c o u rt p ro p e rly c on sid e r e d e a c h o f th e fo u r fa c to rs,

c o n c lu d in g th a t Ja n se n -Nic h ols fa ile d to p ro v e a n y o f th e m

. W e se e n o e rro r in

th e se c o n c lu sio n s. Th ou gh th e e v id e n c e m a y b e d i s p u te d

, th e re wa s so m e

e v id e n c e th a t Co lo n ia l d o e s n o t ro u tin e ly fly h e lic op te rs lo w o v e r th e p ip e lin e

o r h o m e s ne a r it, th a t Co lo n ia l d id n o t, in fa c t, fly in Ma y a n d Ju n e 2 01 3 a s lo w

o v e r he r h o me a s Ja n se n -Nic h o ls a lle g e s, a n d in an y e v e n t, th a t a h e lic o p te r

3o v e rflig h t so m e tim e s m a y b e th e m o st e x p e d ie n t wa y in wh ic h C o lo n ia l c a n

c h e c k fo r a c om

p ro m ise of its p ip e lin e , an o c c u rre n c e th a t p ote n tia lly c o uld p ose

a d a n ge r to th e p ub lic

. In th e lig h t o f th is e v id e n c e , th e tria l c ou rt d id n ot a b use

its c on sid e ra

b le d isc re tio n wh e n it d e nie d a n in te rlo c u to ry in ju n c tio n in th is

c a se , a n d fo r th a t re a so n , we a ffirm th e ju d gm e n t b e lo w

. 2 S e e Ch e ro k e e Co u n ty

v

. City o f Ho lly S p rin g s, 2 8 4 Ga

. 2 9 8

, 3 0 1 (2 ) (6 6 7 SE2 d 7 8 ) (2 00 8); Tre a d w e ll

v

. In v e stm e n t F ra n c h ise s, 2 7 3 Ga

. 5 1 7

, 51 9 (5 4 3 SE2 d 7 2 9 ) (2 00 1 ) (“ Wh e re th e

e v id e n c e is c o n flic tin g [,] it c a n n o t b e sa id th a t th e tria l c o u rt a bu se d its

d isc re tio n in e ith e r g ra n tin g o r d e ny in g th e in ju n c tio n

. ” (Cita tio n s a n d

p u n c tu a tio n o m itte d .)).

Ju d g m e n t a ffirm e d . All th e Ju stic e s c o n c u r.

2 Jansen-Nichols argues as well that the denial of an interlocutory injunction was error because it was b ased on a m isapprehension of the distinction between p ubli c and private
nuisances a n d a m isapplication o f f ederal preem

ption doctrine. In its order deny ing an i n terlocutory injunction, however, the t rial court said n othing at a ll about the distinction
between public and private nuisance, and it likewise said nothing at all a bout p r e e mp t i o n. These claim s of

error are without m erit, and they require no f

urther discussion.

4