## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 11

- 3452 A LI CE G UTH, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. T AZEWEL L C OUN TY, e tal ., D efend a nts-A pp ellees

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 1:09- cv-1333-JES

—Jam es E . Sh adid, Chief Ju dge
.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 11, 2012

— D ECI DE D O CT OB ER 17, 2012

Befo re B AUER, P OSNER, an d W OO D, Circ uit Ju dg es . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e . The pl ai nti f fi n thi s s uitunder 4 2 U. S

. C. § 19 83 se e k s da mag e s fr o m t he g o v e r ni ngb o dy ofTazew el l County a nd fro m var i ous s ubor dinat e ag en c ies an d C ou n ty offic ials (bu t w e c an d isr eg ar d all the defendants o therthan the C ou n ty Boar d, and tre at th e Bo ar d a s th e o nl y de f en dan t) f o r violat i nghe r c o nstitut iona l rights. Th e d istri ct j ud ge gran ted sum m ary j ud gm ent f orthe defe nd ants.2 N o. 11

- 3452 T h e p lain tiff ow n s fiv e p r o p er tie s in a m ix ed ru ra l/ suburban ar ea i n centr al I l l i noi s, ni ne m i l es f ro m the Ci ty ofP eo ria a n d thre e m i l es f ro m the Vil l age o f M or ton ( popu l ati on 1 6, 000)

. S he l ives i n a ho use that’ s o n one ofthe parce l s, but that parce l and the hou se a re not i nv o l ve d i n the c as e. The o th erf o ur pa r ce l s, t o ta l i ng ab ou t 1 90 ac re s a n d ve ry n ea r th e h ou se , w er e u n til re centl y zoned ag ri cul tura l ; the parti es re f erto them as pa r c e l s “ A, ” “ B, ” “ C, ” a nd “ D. ” Al l pr o pe r t i es re l at e d t o th e l i t i g a t i o n a r e ma r k e d o n th e a c c o mpa n y i ng Goo g l e ae r i alpho to g r aph :

### No. 11–3452 34 N o. 11

- 3452 A hogfarm a few hun dred feetfro m the house al mo s t a b u t s p a r c e l s A, C , a n d D. ( B d o e s n o ta butt he f ar m b utc anb e reach ed o nl y b y dr i vi ngpa sti t. ) The ad d itio n al p ro p er tie s la b ele d o n t h e p h ot o a re th e m ain h og fa rm (the one adj oi ni ng A, C, and D i s a sa tel l i te f aci l i ty) , the Fl i gge parc el, and a parce l cal l ed W ol fCro ssin g. B ot h of th os e p a r c e ls u se d to be zo n ed ag ric u ltu ra l, j ust l i ke A thr ough D, but thei r own er s per suaded the County Board to r ezo ne the m as “r uralr esi denti al ”; thi s was bef or e the pl ai nti f fsucce eded i n get ti ng her parce l s r ezo ned. Taz ew el l County’ s z oni ng co de desc r ibe s “r ur alr esi d ent i al ” dev el o pm en t as “ dev el o pm en t in are as n or m ally ou ts id e t h e re ac h o fp u b lic fa c ilitie s,” TazewellCounty Code, ti t. 7, ch. 1, § 9( a)

— i n other w ord s, areas n either urba n n or sub urb an i n w hich nev erth el es s peop l e ca n h av e ho m es wi th o uti nt er f er i ng wi tha g r i cul tu r ala nd f o r es tr y us es . T he l ar g ero fthe tw o proper ti es, W ol fCro ssi ng, i s no w a sub u rban subdi vi si o n. I n Sep tem ber 2004 the p lai nt iff asked the cou nt y’s Zoni ng Boa rd t o re com m end to the County Board that par ce lA be r ez o ne d r ur alres i den ti al

. ( The r ez o ni ng deci si on i s m ade by the County Boar d rather than by t h e Z o n i n gB o a r d

. ) T h e Z o n i n gB o a r d i n s t e a d r e c o mm en ded th atthe Co unty Board de ny he r a ppl i ca ti o n, an d the Co unty Bo ar d, a greei ng, di d s o the f o l l o wi ng m ont h. A year l ater th e plaintiffasked the Z onin g B oard to rec om m en d th at B an d C be rez on ed ru ra l res id en tia l; but ag ai n agr eei ng with the Zoni ng Boar d, the County Board deni ed her appli cati ons.N o. 11

- 3452 5 The pla i nti f fr esponded to thes e di sappoi ntm ents by sui ng the County Boar d i n an I l l i noi s s tat e co urt. But on the day, i n October of the f ol l owing yea r ( 2006 ) , o n w hi ch the t ri al was to st ar t, she agr eed to a set tl em ent with th e d efend an t, w hich the cou rt e n t e red on th e cou rt re cor d as an “Agree d Order. ” The s ett l em ent was not appr o ve d b y the Bo ar d i ts el f, e ve n tho ug h i t was the d e f e n d a n t, b u tb y th e B o a r d ’ s R i s k Ma n a g e me n tC o mm i tte e, wh i ch i s a uthor i zed to m ake bindi ng se ttl em ents on be hal fo fthe enti re Boar d. Se e 5 5 I LC S 5/ 1- 6006. Th e A gr eed Order st ate d that the Boar d now ag re ed t ha tp a r c e l s A, B , an d C

— as w el l as parc elD, wh i ch th e pl aintiffha d no t appl i ed to r ez o ne a l o ngwi ththe ot h e r p a rc els

— sh ou ld be rez on ed ru ra l res id en tia l. It see m s that the Boar d had based i ts ear l i erdeni alo f th e pl ai nt i f f’ s a ppl i ca ti o ns , i n pa r t atl ea st, o n the proxi m i ty of the auxil i ar y hog f ar m , but ha d since l ear ned that the o w ner ofthe tw o hog farm s was p l a n n i n gt o c l o s e th e m. One m i ght thi nk the r el evance o fthe h og f ar m s t o the Boa rd ’s or i gi nal deci si on would have bee n that th e pl ai nt i f f’ s par ce l s, b ecause o fthe i r pr o xi m i tyt o the hogs , were consi dered unsuit abl e f or( hum an) r esi dences. N o t so ; the c o nc ern was no t wi ththe pe o pl e who m i ght l i ve on these parce l s but w i th the hog s. I fthe Co unty Bo ar d want ed to r et ai n a fl o ur i sh i ng agr i cul tura l i nd ustr y i n TazewellCounty

— as ap p ar en tly i t doe s, f orwe re ad on i ts offi ci alwebsi te, “W el com e t o TazewellCounty, I l l i noi s, ” ww w . taze w el l

. com ( vi si ted Se pt. 12, 2012) , that“a gr i cul ture i s a n i m port ant co m po-6 N o. 11

- 3452

n en t o f T az ew ell C ou n ty ’s h is t o ry an d ec on om y a n d it is i ngra i ned w i th the County’ s i denti ty and w ay of l i f e. Se venty
- ei ght p er cent ofthe County’ s l and are a co nsi sts off ar m l and, and agr i cul ture i s p ois ed to r em ai n one of the County’ s defi ni ng i nd ustr i es”

— i t co uld notal l ow u n lim it e d res id en tia l d ev elo p m en t o n lan d cu rre n tly zo n ed for a gr icu l t u r e. R es id en tia l d ev elo p m en t c ou ld squeeze o ut ag ri cul ture l ong bef or e a l l the agr i cul tura l l an d ha d b ee n b o ug htf o r ho m es , b ec au se ifthe c h ar ac te r of t h e c ou n ty ch an ge d from p re d o m i n an tly agr i cul tura l t o predom i nantl y r esi denti al, the hom eown er s would have a p otenti alcl ai m o fnui sance aga i nst th e farm ers

— not l eas t the hogf ar m er s. I tmi g hts e e m t ha ta ny o ne wh o b o ughta h o me a f ew hund re d fe et f ro m a hog f ar m would n ot be he ar d to co m pl ai n abo ut th e g r unt s an d o do r s emi tt ed by the hogs ; the buyerwould have been com pensated b y an appr o pr i at e di sc o unti n the pr i ce o fthe lan d f o r the hom e. But w hen the chara cter ofan a re a chang es gr aduall y fro m co m m er ci alo r i nd ustr i alo r agr i cul tura l to re si denti al, the hom eowners, ev en tho ugh they bo ug htwi thk no wl edg e o ftho se us es o fthe l an d a dj a c e ntt o the m, u s ua l l y c a n s e e kt o ab a t e tho s e uses as p riv at e n u isa n c es . O e hl e rv. Le vy, 85 N .E . 271 , 273 (Ill

. 19 08 ); Woods v. Khan , 4 2 0 N. E. 2 d 1 0 2 8 , 1 0 3 1 ( I l l

. App

. 1981 ) ; se e Spu r Indu s t r i e s , Inc . v. D e l E. Webb D e ve l opm e nt Co. , 49 4 P. 2d 700, 70 6- 08 ( A ri z. 1972 )

. W e s ay “usual l y” b e c a us e I l l i no i s ’ s F a r m Nu i s a nc e S ui t Act, 74 0 I LCS 70 / 3, whi chha s co unt er par ts i n o th ers ta te s, a l te r s th e com m on l aw ’ s r ej ecti on o fthe defe nse o f“co m i ng to the nui sance” by i nsul ati ng f ar m er s a gai nst nui sanceN o. 11

- 3452 7 sui ts aftera f ar m has been i n oper ati on f ora yea r

—but w i th exce pti ons. A llow in g n u is a n c e s u its by n ew ly a rriv ed res id en ts is a s e ns ib l e r ul e b e c a us e i t e nab l e s l a nd t o be put t o its highest -value d u se; reside nt ialuses of land are ve r y o fte n mor e va l ua bl e (j ud ging by pr i ce ) tha n n o nre si denti al uses , such a s a gr icu lture

. S ensibl e o r not, al l o wi ngs uchs ui ts does thr ea te n f ar m er s, a nd i fthe C ou nt y B oard w an ted to prese rve T azew ellCou nt y’s ag r i cul tu r ali nd ustr y wi th o utr el y i nge nt i r el y o n the Far m N uis ance S uitA ct, with i ts excepti ons, thi s w as a r ea so n t o de ny the pl ai nt i f f’ s r ez o nin g a ppl i ca ti o ns even t h ou gh herparc el s were not at prese nt be i ng used for h og f ar m i ng, o r i nd eed f oranythi ng. But this gr ound fo r denia l se em ed to va ni sh wh en the o w ner ofth e h og far m s decl ar ed that he was cl osi ng the f ar m s. The R isk M anage m ent Com m i tte e deci ded ther e was no l ong er a sou nd bas is for resisting th e p lai nt iff’ s s t a t e c o ur tl a ws ui t, a nd s o i ts e t t l e d. Bu t a l though the A gr eed Ord er s tated that parce l s A th ro u gh D sh ou l d b e re zo n ed for re sid en tia l us e, it d id not o rdertha t th eyb e r ez o ne d, a nd i t co ul d no t. The st at e cou rt s ha ve p len ar y po w er to re vie w zo n in g d ec isi o ns , 5 5 I LCS 5/5-1201 2. 1, b utno a utho r i tyt o r ez o ne pr o per ty
. The Co unty Bo ar d ha s th ata utho r i ty, b ut cou ld exerc ise i t only i n ac cord an ce w ith th e C ou nt y’s pr o c e du r e s f o r r e z o ni ng . T ho s e p r o c e du r e s r e qu i r e d a he ar in gb ef o r e th e Zo ni ngBo ar d a nd ( i fa ne i g hb o r i ng l andow ner fi l ed a f or m al o bj ecti on) a thre e- f ourths vote by t h e C o u n t y B o a r d i n f a v o r o f t h e r e z o n i n g, f o r t he8 N o. 11

- 3452

re zoni ng to be approve d. T azewel l County Code, ti t. 7, ch

. 1, §§ 26(f) -( h). One y ea r a fte r the Agr ee d Or derwas e nt er ed, the Zo ni ng Bo ar d he l d th e r equi r ed he ar i ng o n the pl ai nt i f f’ s r e z o n i n ga p p l i c a t i o n s , a n d th i s t i me i tr e c o mm en ded th atthe y b e appr o ve d. The Co unty Bo ar d c o nsi dered the r eco m m endati on a nd vo ted 11 t o 10 i n f avo r ofgr anti ng the appli cati ons. But beca use that w as l ess than a thre e- f ourths m aj or i ty and a f orm alo bj ecti on had bee n fi l ed, the vot e re su lte d i n the denia l o f th e ap p li cation s. A t the sam e m eeting th e B oard agr eed to r ezo n e th e F l i gge parc elfro m ag ri cul tura l to rur al r esi denti al; W ol fCro ssi ng had bee n re zoned sim il arly earl ier. At l as t, the ne xty ear (20 08 ) , the Bo ar d r el en te d a nd g r an te d the pl ai nt i f f’ s appl i ca ti o ns . Butb y thi s ti m e th e real estate m arket h ad coll ap s ed , and her p arcels w ere no l onge r w or th m or e z oned res i denti althan they had been w hen zo ned a gr i cul tura l

. The pl ai nti f fhad gai ned n ot h in g fro m th e re zo n in g b ec au se of th e t h re e y ea rs it h ad t ake n her to o btai n i t, m or e pr eci sel y b ecause o f the y ear ’ s del ay afterthe Bo ard’s m eet i ng i n Octob e r 2 0 0 7 a t whi c h he r a pp l i c a t i o ns ha d a g a i n b e e n de ni e d. S he a r g ue s th ats he was tur ne d do wn attha t m ee ting because t h e Board’ s m em ber s were angr y with her f or ha vi ng sued the Bo ar d o ve r the pr ev i o us de ni alo fthe appli cati ons, and a ngry too w i th the sta te c ou rt f or ha vi nge nt er ta i ne d tha t su i t. At th e m ee tingo ne o fthe B oard ’s m em bers rem arked acidly tha t ifthe sta te c o u rt j u d ge w an te d to d o z on in g h e s h ou ld res i g n a n d j oinN o. 11

- 3452 9 the Zoni ng Boar d, and another descr ibed hi m sel fas “i nc en se d” atthe c o ur t. One mightwon derwhy, i fthe Board was off ended by the st ate co urt su i t, i t had set tl ed ra therthan f ought i t an d i fnece ssa ryappeal ed an adver se j ud gm ent t o a hi gherst ate co urt. But m aybe the Board ’s m em ber shi p had changed i n the yea r that el aps ed be twe enthe Agr ee d Or dera nd the c o nt en ti o us m ee ting, a nd b ec o m e f ei st i er . And r emembertha t th e settlem en t had b e e n m ad e by a com m ittee of th e B oard r athe r tha n by the e nt i r e Bo ar d, a nd mem be r s o fthe Bo a r d who we r e no t o n t he c o mm i t t e e may have di s a pprove d ofi t. I f, as the pla i nti f fco ntends, t h e Board’ s f ai l ure to gr ant the r ezo ni ng a p p l i cati ons vi ol ate d the Agree d Order, o ne m i ght a l so w onder w hy she d id n ’t s eeka j udgm en t o fc o nt empt fr o m the s ta te c o ur t, whi ch( i fo ne m ay j ud ge f ro m the B oar d’s host i l e r eact i on) had bee n f ri endly to hersui t; o r see k pl enar y jud i ci al r evi ew o f th e Bo ar d’ s dec i si o n, a s sh e ha d do ne pr ev i o us l y . S he c o ul dn ’ ta c t ua l l y h a v e o b t a i ne d a j ud g men to fc o nt e mpt f o r v i o l at i o n o fthe s et tl ement, ho wev er, b ec au se the Board co uld notr ezo ne with ou t a thr ee- f ourths vo te, a n d th e v o t e t o r e z o n e f a i l e d t o r e a c h th a tth r e s h o l d. The Ri skM an ag ementCo m m i tt ee , a m er e sl i ve r o fthe Board, co uld notco m m i t the Boar d to rule f avo rabl y o n the a pp l i cati ons, wh ate ve r the Agree d Order s ai d, as th at w ou ld req uire the Boa rd ’s cl os in g i ts coll ective ears to what ev erm ight o cc ur a t th e r ez o ni ngpr o ce edi ng th at m i ght pr ovi de gr ounds f ordeni al

. A nd i n f act som ethi ng did o ccur that su p p or ted deni al and m ay have swungc r i ti ca l v o te s ag ai ns t r ez o ni ng

— the Boa rd was10 N o. 11

- 3452 tol d that the hogf ar m er h ad changed hi s m i nd and w as t u rn in g t h e a u x iliary h og farm th at ab u tt ed p ar c els A thr ough D ov erto hi s s on, wh o w oul d conti nue to oper ate i t. A nd a Board m em berhad go ne a n d lo oked at the a uxiliary f ar m and re port ed that ther e were 60 to 100 hogs ther e. The pla i nti f fchal l enges the October20 07 denia l o f h er rez on in g a p p lica tio n s o n th re e g r o u n d s . Th e firs t is that i t co nsti tuted i nvi dio us di scr i m i nati on i n f avo r of th e ow n er s of th e Fligg e an d W olf C ro ss i n g p a rc els a n d t h u s a d en ial of e q u al p ro te c tio n to a “c las s o f on e.” (Sh e d oe sn ’t c laim to be a m em b er ofa tr ad itio n ally d iscrim inated -against class.) Vil la geof Wi l l owbrook v

. O le ch , 528 U .S. 56 2, 56 3-6 4 (2 00 0) (p er cu ri am ); H i l t on v. C ity of W he e l i ng, 20 9 F

. 3d 1005 , 10 07 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) ; se e D e l M ar ce l l ev. B row n County Corp. , 680 F.3d 887 ( 7th Cir. 2012 ) (en ban c). Th e aeria l p hot o i nd icates, how ever, th at both pa rcels are f arth er fr om the m a in hog farm than the pl ai nti f f’ s par cel s a re fro m the au x iliary hog farm , and anyw ay th ere w as evid en ce b e fo r e the Boa rd t h a tth e h o g s h a d b e e n r e mo v e d fr o m th e ma i n f a r m. The pla i nti f f’ s seco nd gro und of att ack i s that the deni al ofr ezo ni ng was i n re tal iat ion fo r her bri ngi ng the st ate cour t s uit

. The fi l i ng o fa l aw sui t ca n b e an e x erci se of the F i rs t Am endm ent r i ght o ffre e s peech i f, as i n “cause ” litig at ion , th e s u it a rt icu lat es p u b lic c on c er n s. NAACP v. But t on , 37 1 U.S

. 41 5, 42 9- 30 ( 196 3); C hic ago U nited Industries , Lt d. v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 66 9 F

. 3d 847, 85 2 ( 7th Cir

. 20 12) ; G lattv. Ch icago P ark D is tr ict, 87F. 3d 190, 19 3 (7 th C ir. 19 96 ); Yatv in v

. M adi s on M e t r opol i t an Sc hoolN o. 11

- 3452 11 D is tr ict, 840 F.2d 41 2 , 41 9-2 0 (7 th C ir. 19 88 ). B u t t h e s ole a i m o f t h e p l a i n t i f f’ s z o n i n g s u i t wa s t o e n h a n ce t he val ue o fherp ro p er ty. A sui t s uch as hers , desi gned to re cti fy a pri vate gr i evance , co uld h ow eve r be pr ote cted by the pet itio n c l ause ofthe Fi rs t Am endm ent a gai nst re tal i ati on. B o rou gh of D ury ea v . Gu a rnieri, 13 1 S

. Ct. 24 88, 24 98 ( 20 11 )

. Butthe re w ou ld be no ne ed to b r i ngthe h ea vy ar ti l l er y o fa f edera l l aw sui t i nto pla y, bec ause st at e re m ed ies w ou ld be en tir ely ad eq u at e. T h e Illino is co ur ts c ant ak e eff ec ti ve meas ur es a g ai ns t per so ns , i ncl ud i ng l oca l g overnm ent o f fi ci al s, i n I l l i noi s who tr y t o puni shpe o pl e who tu r n t o tho se c o ur ts f o r r el i ef, a s th e p l a i n t iff in t h is c as e d id

. B atagiannis v. Wes t Lafayett e Com m uni ty S ch ool Corp. , 454 F.3d 738 , 742-43 (7th C ir. 20 06 ) ; Woodr uf

f v. M as on , 54 2 F

. 3d 545, 56 0- 61 ( 7th C ir. 2008) (conc urring op inion). A nd i n ar gui ng r eta l i ati on s he enco unters an unsuspected o bst ac le: i t i s m or e di f fi cul t t o prove the bad intent ofa l egi sl ati ve body, wh i ch i s a co l l ecti ve, than of an i nd ivi d ua l. Rem em ber th at a m aj ority o f t he Boa rd vot ed i n f avo r ofthe re zoni n g; th ey, atl eas t, m ust be exoner ate d fro m the charg e of havi ng re tal i ate d agai nst the pla i nti f f f or her sta te cour t sui t. A s f or the oth er s, onl y t w o ofthem expre sse d i rr i tat i on a t the sui t. S eve ra l othe rs sai d they w anted to prot ect agr i cul ture i n th is part ofthe county

— a nonre ta l i at o r y mot i ve f o r v o ting ag ai ns t th e appl i catio ns . S o m e o fthe mem be r s who vo te d a g ai ns t r ez o ni ngdi dn’ t in di ca te a r ea so n, a nd as a r esul t w e don’ t know wh ethereno ugh vot es wer e m o tivated by a de si r e to r et al i at e to de f ea t th e re zo n in g. Fin ally , th e re fu sa l to re zo n e t h e p ar c els co u ld12 N o. 11

- 3452

no t be tho ug hta n i r r at i o na l de st r uc tion o fv al ue acti onabl e a s a deni al o fsubst anti ve du e pr oce ss, se e, e.g ., C o nisto n Co rp. v. Villa ge of H o ff m a n E stat es , 84 4 F

. 2d 461, 46 7 ( 7th Ci r. 19 88)

— the e quiva l ent o fa tak i ng o f proper ty not f ora pu bl i c purpose . Th a tc o mpl e t e s o urdi s c us s i o n o fthe p l a i nt i f f’ s l i a b i l i ty cl ai m , but f orco m ple tenes s we note thath er cl ai m f or re l i efi s fl aw ed as w el l

. S he sa ys that i n 200 7 her p ar cel s were w or th l ess than $5, 000 per acr e z oned ag ricu ltural but w ou ld h ave be en w or t h m ore

— m uch m ore

— th an $2 5, 00 0 per ac r e ha d th ey be en zo ne d r es i den

ti al and that sh e w oul d have s ol d at l eas t s om e o fthem th en . T ha t is a pe r m i ss ibl e th eo r y o fda m ag es . Buts he i s a l so oral ter nati vel y s eeki ng dam age s f orthe l oss o f v a l ue s he wo ul d h a v e s us t a i ne d o n pa r c e l s n o ts o l d, the l o s s c a us e d b y the c o l l a ps e o fthe h o us i ngmark et when th e ho us i ngb ub ble bur sta nd b r o ug htmuch o fthe e c o no my d o wnw i t h i t, w i t h th e r e s u l tth a tb y th e t i me the r ezo ni ng was fi nal ly approve d i n 200 8 herl and w as w or th no m or e f orr esi denti al than f orag ri cul tura l use. The County B oar d w as ofco urse notr esponsibl e f or the ho usi ng bubbl e o r i ts col l apse. The co l l ap se w as not f or ese en. There was no way the Boar d coul d have g auged th e ris k of a co llap se in r es id en tia l ho u sin g v alu es , i n whi c h c a s e a d e l a y i n g r a n t i n gr e z o n i n ga p p l i c a t i o ns woul d ha r m th e p l ai nt i f f

. Ge ne r al l y a t o r tfea so r ( th e pla i nti f fi s a ccusi ng the Boar d offedera l co nsti tuti onal tor ts, f orwh i ch 42 U

. S. C. § 1983 cr eat es a federa l r em edy) is n ot liab le for cr ea tin g u n for es ee ab le ris ks . Th is pri nci ple i s o l d . It i s i l l ustr ate d by B er ry v. Sugar NotchN o. 11

- 3452 13 Borou gh , 43 A tl. 240 (Pa. 1899), a case in w hich the m otorman o f a t r o l l e y , b y s pe e di ng, c a us e d t he t r o l l e y to a r r i v e b e ne a t h a tre e a tthe mo men tthe t r e e c o l l a ps e d, dam agi ng the tr ol l ey. The spee ding had not i ncreased th e l i k el i ho o d o fs ucha n a cc i den t, a s di st i nc t fro m the l i kel i hood o fa derai l m ent, and so im posi ng l i abi l i ty wo ul d no th a v e i nd uc e d the t r o l l e y s y s t e m t o a do pt safetym eas ures desi gned to avo i d a future such acci dent. I n m oder n l aw the pri nci p le of t he B erryca se is d iscus sed i n term s of th e d isti nc t ion betw een “bu t for” ca us at i o n ( so m et i m es cal l ed tr an sa ct i o n c au sa ti o n, a nd by phil oso phers a nece ssa ryco nd i ti on) an d l oss causa tio n, an d is illus tr at ed by a c as e in th is c ou rta n a l yt ica lly i den ti ca l to th e pr es en t o ne . I n M ovi tz v. Fi rs tNat i onal Bank, 1 4 8 F

. 3 d 7 6 0 , 7 6 3

- 6 4 ( 7 t h Ci r . 1 9 9 8 ) , h a d i tn ot been f or the d efend an t ’s n egli gen ce, the p lai nt iff w oul d n ot have f ound him sel fo w ni ng a bui l ding w hen a di sas tr ous downturn i n the l oca l r eales tat e m arket g r ea tl y r edu ce d the b ui l di ng ’ s va l ue . Butthe de f en dan t bor e no r esponsibi l i ty f orthatdow n turn, and hence, w e hel d, i t was notl i abl e f orthe re du cti on i n val ue. “B ut f or” cau sation or tran sact ion ca u s a t ion refers to ac ts of th e d efe n d an t t h at ca u se th e p l a i n t iff to b e in the wrong pla ce a t the wrong tim e, and l oss causa ti on t o acts , w hi ch can be of som eone or som ethi ng el se, th at m adei t the w rong p lace at the w rong tim e. T he Boa rd ’s d ela y in gra n tin g t h e a p p lic a t i o n s t o re zo n e re su lte d in the pl ai nti ff’ s pro perti es bei ng r ezo ned at a tim e when re si d en tialzo ni ng had l osti ts val ue. But i t had l osti ts value f or reaso n s u nrelated to anyth ing the Boa rd14 N o. 11

- 3452 had everdone, and f orthatloss t h e B oar d coul d not be hel d l i abl e. A FFI RMED
.

10- 17- 12