Opinion ID: 2191521
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The majority declares:

Text: Diminution in property values caused by negative publicity is, on these facts, damnum absque injuria  a loss without an injury in the legal sense.[ [59] ] Fear-inspired property depreciation will support a nuisance action where (a) the fears are such as would ordinarily be experienced by a person confronting the activity conducted, or the condition created or maintained, on neighboring property, [60] and (b) competent evidence establishes that the fears manifested themselves in a decline in the value of plaintiffs' property. Rockenbach v Apostle, 330 Mich 338; 47 NW2d 636 (1951), [61] concerned the proposed operation of a funeral home in a residential district. The plaintiffs, neighboring homeowners, sought to enjoin establishment of the business as a nuisance. The Court, finding that the mortuary would have a depressing influence upon [the plaintiffs], [62] and that potential purchasers of the plaintiffs' property would likely react the same way, [63] granted an injunction. [64] The Court concluded that the fear or dread evoked by the proximity of a mortuary  `not well founded, as we have seen, but nevertheless present in the mind of the normal layman'  tended to have an adverse effect on market values. [65] In Dillon v Moran, 237 Mich 130, 131; 211 NW 67 (1926), this Court enjoined as a nuisance the proposed establishment of a funeral home in a residential district on the sole ground that plaintiff would suffer material pecuniary loss if defendant's plans were carried out. (Emphasis added.) The plaintiff's property was adjacent to the proposed site. The Court cited no interference with an interest in the use and enjoyment of property, and no inconvenience that might be suffered by the plaintiff, except pecuniary loss. [66] Dillon makes clear that diminution in property values alone is not always damnum absque injuria, [67] and the absence of other interferences with the use and enjoyment of property does not automatically preclude maintenance of a nuisance action. [68] Similarly, Rockenbach echoed Kundinger v Bagnasco, 298 Mich 15; 298 NW 386 (1941), in stressing that, to recover in nuisance, plaintiffs need not demonstrate that they were threatened by a traditionally recognized intrusion on their enjoyment of land, such as offensive odors: The evidence in this case would not support a finding that the establishment proposed by the defendants will in its operation become a nuisance by reason of noises, odors, fumes, flies, or dissemination of disease. In fact, plaintiffs have abandoned such claims, and there is no probative value in any testimony to show that a parking problem or traffic congestion will necessarily arise.[ [69] ] It is odd to assert that although relief is available against a defendant conducting a lawful business and committing no independently actionable wrong, it is unavailable where plaintiffs' allegations, if proved, render defendants at least subject to liability to numerous property owners in plaintiffs' immediate neighborhood. Further, if the proposed establishment of a lawful business may be enjoined as a nuisance in fact, a damage remedy should be available to compensate for pecuniary harm already suffered as the result of unlawful or tortious conduct.