Opinion ID: 2462938
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Temporary Nuisance

Text: However, the record does not support the conclusion by the Court of Appeals that this is an action to abate a temporary nuisance. In Pate v. City of Martin, 614 S.W.2d 46 (Tenn. 1981), this Court considered whether the city's operation of a sewage lagoon could be enjoined as a temporary nuisance. The Court noted that a nuisance extends to everything that endangers life or health, gives offense to the senses, violates the laws of decency, or obstructs the reasonable and comfortable use of property. Id. at 47. The Court concluded that the lagoon was a temporary nuisance, in that it could be corrected by the expenditure of labor or money, and held the plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction requiring the city to take all responsible steps to terminate the emission of odors from the lagoon. The Court further held that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages for having been deprived of the use and enjoyment of their property. Id. at 48. In that case, the maintenance of the sewage lagoon was an affirmative act by the city which interfered with the plaintiff's use of their property. In determining that the maintenance of a chain across the access road to bicycle trails in a park did not constitute a nuisance for which the city could be held liable, the Court of Appeals, in Dean v. Bays Mountain Park Ass'n, 551 S.W.2d 702, 704 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977), stated: The cases in Tennessee considering municipal liability for nuisance establish the following requirements: an inherently dangerous condition and affirmative action on the part of the municipality. Both elements must be established before a nuisance can be found and the distinction must be preserved `between negligence, an omission of duty, and a nuisance, or active wrong.' Powell v. City of Nashville, 167 Tenn. 334, 69 S.W.2d 894 (1933). The court in that case dismissed the complaint against the defendants on the ground that there was no evidence in the record to establish an inherently dangerous condition. The record in the case before the Court contains no evidence to support either requirement. There is no evidence that the condition of the street was inherently dangerous, created any danger, or caused any harm, nor has the city been charged with any affirmative action that caused the plaintiffs harm. Consequently, the record does not support the decision by the Court of Appeals that the suit was an action to abate a temporary nuisance.