Opinion ID: 2161024
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: nuisance instructions

Text: National Farms and O.N. claim the trial court erroneously instructed the jury concerning liability for private nuisance. National Farms and O.N.'s assertion that the instructions given do not reflect the law as stated in Hall v. Phillips, 231 Neb. 269, 436 N.W.2d 139 (1989), is correct. In Hall, we expressly adopted the law of nuisance as articulated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1979). We stated: For a law action tried to a jury, where a court may be required to fashion instructions specifying the requirements for an actionable private nuisance and consequent liability, we are persuaded that the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 822 (1979) expresses a suitable standard to determine when one may be subject to liability and provides more guidance to a jury than do the present expressions concerning existence of a private nuisance as currently characterized in Nebraska equity cases. Hall v. Phillips, 231 Neb. at 278, 436 N.W.2d at 145. In the case at hand, the trial court, apparently pursuant to NJI2d Civ. 17.01, instructed the jury that the interference would be unreasonable if 1) [t]he damage was greater than the plaintiffs should be required to bear without compensation; or 2) [t]he defendants could have avoided the harm in whole or in part without undue hardship. The first alternative in that instruction was obviously fashioned after the Restatement, supra, § 829 A at 135, which states: An intentional invasion of another's interest in the use and enjoyment of land is unreasonable if the harm resulting from the invasion is severe and greater than the other should be required to bear without compensation. The second alternative was apparently modeled after the Restatement, supra, § 830 at 136: An intentional invasion of another's interest in the use and enjoyment of land is unreasonable if the harm is significant and it would be practicable for the actor to avoid the harm in whole or in part without undue hardship. However, contrary to the comment to NJI2d 17.01 and the assertions of both National Farms and O.N. and the Kopeckys, comment b. to several sections of the Restatement, supra, shows that the authors of the Restatement did not intend that the rules contained within §§ 829 through 831 be used to instruct a jury. Rather, the authors of the Restatement clearly intended that the rules contained within §§ 829 through 831 be used to guide judges in those cases where it is appropriate to determine that an intentional interference is unreasonable as a matter of law. See, the Restatement, supra, §§ 826 and 829 through 831, comment b. The authors of the Restatement explain: When it is doubtful whether the facts of a case bring it within the rule here stated, the unreasonableness of the invasion is determined by the trier of fact under the general rule stated in § 826. The Restatement, supra, § 829, comment b. at 134. Accord, the Restatement, supra, §§ 829 A through 831, comment b. (the authors use language similar to that quoted above). Section 826 at 119 states: An intentional invasion of another's interest in the use and enjoyment of land is unreasonable if (a) the gravity of the harm outweighs the utility of the actor's conduct, or (b) the harm caused by the conduct is serious and the financial burden of compensating for this and similar harm to others would not make the continuation of the conduct not feasible. As comment d. to § 826 explains, factors to consider when determining the gravity of the harm and the utility of the actor's conduct are listed in the Restatement, supra, §§ 827 and 828, respectively. Section 827 at 124 states: In determining the gravity of the harm from an intentional invasion of another's interest in the use and enjoyment of land, the following factors are important: (a) The extent of the harm involved; (b) the character of the harm involved; (c) the social value that the law attaches to the type of use or enjoyment invaded; (d) the suitability of the particular use or enjoyment invaded to the character of the locality; and (e) the burden on the person harmed of avoiding the harm. Section 828 at 129 states: In determining the utility of conduct that causes an intentional invasion of another's interest in the use and enjoyment of land, the following factors are important: (a) the social value that the law attaches to the primary purpose of the conduct; (b) the suitability of the conduct to the character of the locality; and (c) the impracticability of preventing or avoiding the invasion. Thus, whether the facts of a particular case fit within one of the rules contained in §§ 829 through 831 is a question of law and, as such, must be decided by the court. The jury, therefore, should not have been instructed as it was according to §§ 829A and 830. When the judge is unable to determine that an invasion is unreasonable as a matter of law under §§ 829 through 831, the jury decides pursuant to § 826. The jury should then be instructed pursuant to § 826. If the judgment in the earlier case, Kaup v. National Farms, Inc., and O.N. Corporation, Holt County District Court, case No. 18235, is binding in this case because of the application of collateral estoppel, then the issue of nuisance would not be a matter submitted to the jury. The applicability of the doctrine of collateral estoppel to this case constitutes a question of law. Petska v. Olson Gravel, Inc., 243 Neb. 568, 500 N.W.2d 828 (1993). With regard to questions of law, this court is obligated to reach a conclusion independent from the trial court's conclusion. Id.; Nebraska Builders Prod. Co. v. Industrial Erectors, 239 Neb. 744, 478 N.W.2d 257 (1992). There are four conditions that must exist for the doctrine of collateral estoppel to apply: (1) The identical issue was decided in a prior action, (2) there was a judgment on the merits which was final, (3) the party against whom the rule is applied was a party or in privity with a party to the prior action, and (4) there was an opportunity to fully and fairly litigate the issue in the prior action. McCook Nat. Bank v. Myers, 243 Neb. 853, 503 N.W.2d 200 (1993); State on behalf of J.R. v. Mendoza, 240 Neb. 149, 481 N.W.2d 165 (1992). National Farms and O.N. argue that the issue decided here was not identical to the one decided in the Kaup case. National Farms and O.N. suggest that since the plaintiffs in the Kaup case lived approximately a mile nearer to the swine-raising facility and in the opposite direction from the Kopeckys, the issue of nuisance is not identical. Faced with similar cases, other courts have applied a rule which says that in the absence of a substantial factual change, neither the same facts nor identical facts may be relitigated. McHugh v. City of Wichita, 1 Kan. App.2d 180, 563 P.2d 497 (1977) (nuisance case in which collateral estoppel was not applicable because of a substantial and material change in circumstances). See, also, Riblet v. Ideal Cement Co., 54 Wash.2d 779, 345 P.2d 173 (1959) (nuisance case where, in the absence of a major factual change, prior judgment bound the parties). But see Hill v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., 260 Minn. 315, 109 N.W.2d 749 (1961) (determination, in prior action against defendant, that defendant had created a private nuisance as regarded plaintiff in that action was not res judicata as to existence of private nuisance in later action by a different plaintiff). Although we have never considered this precise issue in the context of a continuing tort, we have considered the application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel in the context of negligence. See Peterson v. The Nebraska Nat. Gas Co., 204 Neb. 136, 281 N.W.2d 525 (1979). In Peterson, the plaintiff sued the defendant, The Nebraska Natural Gas Co., alleging that the gas company's negligence had caused extensive damage to his building. Prior to the trial in Peterson, the gas company had been sued by Louise Hammond, the owner of the Pathfinder Hotel, for negligently causing an explosion which destroyed that hotel. See Hammond v. The Nebraska Nat. Gas Co., 204 Neb. 80, 281 N.W.2d 520 (1979). Asserting that the same explosion had caused the damage to his building a block away, Peterson moved for summary judgment on the issues of negligence and proximate cause. In affirming the trial court's grant of summary judgment, we stated: [W]here cases are interwoven and interdependent and the controversy involved has already been considered and determined in a prior proceeding involving one of the parties now before the court, the court has a right to examine its own records and take judicial notice of its own proceedings and judgment in the prior action. Peterson v. The Nebraska Natural Gas Co., 204 Neb. at 138, 281 N.W.2d at 527. The grant of summary judgment on the issues of negligence and proximate cause was insufficient alone for Peterson to prevail, but when we considered it with the evidence on damages adduced at trial, we affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of Peterson. We have determined that a similar approach should have been employed here. That is, we find that the procedure approved of in Peterson is also appropriate in the context of a continuing tort. Thus, for the purposes of applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel, an issue is considered to be the identical issue in the absence of a significant factual change. It appears that the trial court initially intended to determine the extent to which the judgment in Kaup v. National Farms, Inc., and O.N. Corporation, Holt County District Court, case No. 18235, precluded relitigation of the existence of the nuisance after that judgment. At the start of the trial in this case, the court orally informed the jury that one of the material facts it was to determine was whether the swine-raising facility was substantially changed after September 18, 1986 [the date of the Kaup verdict], so that unreasonable odors and flies ceased to come from the facility after that date. However, a review of the jury instructions reveals that the jury was never required to make such a determination in order to arrive at a verdict. The issue of substantial change is only relevant to the applicability of the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Whether the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies is a question of law. Therefore, whether there was a substantial factual change in this case should have been decided by the court. The parties clearly addressed the issue during the course of the trial; however, nothing in the record discloses that the trial judge ever made the determination. Accordingly, the issues we must address are whether there was a substantial change in the level of odors and flies after the date of the verdict in the Kaup case and also whether the Kopeckys are situated similarly enough to the Kaups, the plaintiffs in that case, so that the Kaup case should be applied as a matter of law. The Kaups lived a mile nearer to the swine-raising facility and in the opposite direction from the Kopeckys. A review of the evidence shows that the wind blows in the direction of the Kopeckys, northwesterly, approximately 11 percent of the time, and the wind blows in the Kaups' direction, southeasterly, roughly 13 percent of the time. One of the Kopeckys' neighbors, Larry Ogden, who lived in the same general direction from the swine-raising facility, but approximately 1½ miles further away than the Kopeckys, testified that the odor he smelled at his residence was about the same strength as the odor he could detect at the Kopecky residence. Another neighbor, Jay Seger, who lived approximately 2½ miles north of National Farms and O.N.'s facility, described the odor that he received at his property as just plain offensive. There was similar testimony from several others, confirming that the odor and flies could be detected at least as far away as the Kopeckys lived. Even when viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to National Farms and O.N., we cannot conclude that the slight difference in wind frequency or the small difference in distance constitutes a substantial factual change of the sort necessitating relitigation of the nuisance during the period in which the case at hand overlaps with the Kaup case. National Farms and O.N. adduced evidence showing that they stopped recycling the water they used to flush waste from their buildings in October 1990. They added screening stations outside the farrowing units and changed the screens to ones with smaller openings, which prevent more of the solids from flowing into the lagoon. Four center-pivot irrigation systems were also added. Some of the center-pivot irrigation systems were changed from a Rain Bird-type arrangement to a droplet type, which drops the effluent closer to the ground instead of shooting it up into the air. Feeders in the grower/finisher units were replaced. They were replaced so less feed would get into the waste disposal system, thereby reducing the potential for odor. National Farms and O.N. stopped pumping out of the primary finishing lagoon and started pumping from the secondary lagoon only. They also discontinued drawing down the lagoons below recommended levels. National Farms and O.N. thus showed that changes were made. The question at issue, however, is whether the changes were substantial. National Farms and O.N. showed they undertook efforts designed to reduce odors. They failed to adduce any evidence showing that their efforts actually reduced the odors emitted, that there ceased to be an invasion, or that the invasion was lessened to any degree. In this context, substantial must refer to the effect of the changes. The only evidence adduced at trial was that the odors emanating from the swine-raising facility had not changed. Michele Kopecky testified that neither the frequency nor the intensity of the odors changed at all after the Kaup decision. Dr. Leon Chesnin, the plaintiff's expert, who visited the facility in question in 1986 and in 1990, when asked whether there has been a significant difference between 1986 and 1990 in the way in which the defendants have operated the waste treatment facility, replied: My opinion is that as far as the human environment is concerned, in the neighborhood of the O.N. facility, the impact will be the same. Given this testimony, the only evidence adduced at trial was that the changes made to the swine-raising facility were not substantial. In the absence of a substantial factual change, National Farms and O.N., as a matter of law, are bound by the prior determination on the issue of nuisance. The issue of liability, therefore, never should have been submitted to the jury. Thus, any error committed in instructing the jury on the law of nuisance was harmless. See Plambeck v. Union Pacific RR. Co., 232 Neb. 590, 441 N.W.2d 614 (1989).