Opinion ID: 2013455
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: public nuisance and negligence

Text: ¶ 19. We begin first by defining public nuisance, and then reviewing the seminal case that links public nuisance and negligence concepts, Brown v. Milwaukee Terminal Railway Co., 199 Wis. 575, 224 N.W. 748, on reargument, 199 Wis. 588, 227 N.W. 385 (1929). We then review the record to determine whether summary judgment is appropriate on the issue of whether the tree branches obscuring the stop sign resulted in a public nuisance as a matter of law. Specifically, we examine the record to determine the existence of the public nuisance itself, actual or constructive notice of the public nuisance, and whether the failure to abate the public nuisance was a cause of the plaintiffs injuries. ¶ 20. By first focusing on the relationship between public nuisance and negligence, we attempt to clarify that relationship as much as possible, given the somewhat confusing precedent. [13] Based on this court's precedent, mainly Brown, we hold that negligence and nuisance concepts overlap in several respects. First, liability for maintaining a public nuisance can be based on either negligent or intentional conduct that maintains a condition or activity which substantially or unduly interferes with the use of a public place or with the activities of an entire community. Second, both notice and causation, concepts oftentimes reserved for negligence cases, are required to establish liability for maintaining a public nuisance. Third, for the purposes of comparing and apportioning responsibility for the accident, and for determining contribution among culpable parties, we conclude that when all of the elements to establish liability for maintaining a public nuisance are affirmatively proven, a defendant's failure to abate a public nuisance is analogous to negligence per se. Finally, similar to liability for negligence, liability for maintaining a public nuisance can be limited by public policy considerations. [6-8] ¶ 21. A nuisance [14] is a condition or activity which unduly interferes with the use of land or of a public place. Schiro, 272 Wis. at 546. A public nuisance is a condition or activity which substantially or unduly interferes with the use of a public place or with the activities of an entire community. [15] See id. (quoting Warren A. Seavey, Nuisance: Contributory Negligence and Other Mysteries, 65 Harv. L. Rev. 984 (1952)). The number of people affected does not strictly define a public nuisance. [16] State v. Quality Egg Farm, Inc., 104 Wis. 2d 506, 520, 311 N.W.2d 650 (1981). Rather, the court considers many factors, including, among others, the nature of the activity, the reasonableness of the use of the property, location of the activity, and the degree or character of the injury inflicted or right impinged upon. Id. As early as 1875, this court defined a public nuisance with regard to highways, stating: Any obstruction in or encroachment upon a highway, which unnecessarily impedes or incommodes the lawful use of such highway by the public, is a public nuisance . . . . Hubbell v. Goodrich, 37 Wis. 84, 86 (1875). [17] ¶ 22. The central issue in this case requires us to examine and define the relationship between public nuisance and negligence. The court of appeals specifically rejected the defendants' arguments that the circuit court erred by injecting the notion of `nuisance' into its analysis, or that it confused the issues of nuisance and negligence, or simply that it could not determine the existence of a nuisance on summary judgment. Physicians Plus, 2001 WI App 148, ¶ 43. Instead, the court specifically relied on the language and reasoning from Brown, where this court concluded that the defendant was liable for maintaining a nuisance, consisting of a dead and rotten tree located between the sidewalk and the curb. The court of appeals relied on language from Brown concluding that a tree, which `because of any change in [its] structure . . . becomes a menace to the safety of those who travel the street,' is a nuisance. Physicians Plus, 2001 WI App 148, ¶ 44 (citing Brown, 199 Wis. at 589). We conclude that the court of appeals correctly focused its analysis on Brown; therefore, we first discuss Brown as the seminal case framing the relationship between public nuisance and negligence. [18] ¶ 23. In Brown, a large tree stood between the street and a public sidewalk in the City of Milwaukee. Brown, 199 Wis. at 577. For some time prior to the accident, the tree was dead and decaying. Id. On June 9, 1925, the tree suddenly fell, striking the plaintiff and causing serious injury. Id. The plaintiff subsequently sued the owner of the property, Milwaukee Terminal Railway Co., and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. On appeal, the majority of this court initially reversed, holding that the primary responsibility for maintaining the tree belonged to the city rather than the private landowner. Id. at 585. ¶ 24. On reargument, the court vacated its original opinion and affirmed the verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The court discussed the relationship between nuisance and negligence, stating: Negligence of the defendant is not ordinarily an essential element in an action for damages sustained by reason of a nuisance. The action is founded on the wrongful act in creating or maintaining it, and the negligence of the defendant, unless in exceptional cases, is not material. Brown, 199 Wis. at 589 (quoting Lamming v. Galusha, 31 N.E. 1024 (N.Y. 1892)). The court held that liability for maintaining a public nuisance is based on the degree of danger existing even with the best of care. Brown, 199 Wis. at 589 (quoting 20 Ruling Case Law, p. 381). The court then noted, that there is a class of casesmeaning cases where liability is based on maintenance of a public nuisance where the existence of a public nuisance does not create liability unless the defendant had notice of the danger. Id. In this class of cases, the court held it must be shown either that the defendant knew of the danger . . . or that such condition had existed for such length of time that, by the exercise of ordinary care, the defendant ought to have discovered the danger and to have removed it before injuries were sustained by the plaintiff. Id. at 590. [19] The court specifically addressed the basis for the landowner's duty to remove the nuisance there, the dead tree. In removing the menace of the dead tree the lotowner is not performing any duty imposed upon the public. He is simply discharging the duty which the common law imposes upon him as the owner of a tree that has become a menace to the safety of those who travel the street. Id. at 591-592. The essence of the opinion, addressing the relationship between maintenance of a public nuisance and negligence, is stated in this paragraph: One who maintains a nuisance created by another is liable for injuries sustained because of the danger incident thereto just as clearly as if he had himself created the danger in the first place. If the owner or the occupier of property continues a nuisance created thereon by others, he is liable, not because he owns or occupies the premises, but because he does not abate the nuisance. Id. at 590 (quoting 20 Ruling Case Law, p. 392). ¶ 25. Since Brown, this court has decided other public nuisance cases. However, we note that although the cases referenced the relationship between public nuisance and negligence, the cases often seem to have created more confusion, rather than clarified that relationship. See Jost v. Dairyland Power Coop., 45 Wis. 2d 164, 172 N.W.2d 647 (1969) (noting that the concepts of negligence and nuisance are not exclusive); Raisanen v. City of Milwaukee, 35 Wis. 2d 504, 151 N.W.2d 129 (1967) (recognizing that nuisance can be grounded on negligent or intentional conduct but holding that if the condition does not create liability for negligence, there is no liability for negligently maintaining a public nuisance); Plesko v. Allied Inv. Co., 12 Wis. 2d 168, 173, 107 N.W.2d 201 (1961) (upholding and applying Brown and framing the issue in terms of placing responsibility because neither the landowner nor the city acted to remove a public nuisance); [20] Krejci v. Lojeski, 275 Wis. 20, 80 N.W.2d 794 (1957) (concluding that if a condition could not create liability for negligence, it likewise could not create liability for negligently maintaining a public nuisance); Schiro v. Oriental Realty Co., 272 Wis. 537, 546, 76 N.W.2d 355 (1956) (concluding that when a nuisance is created or maintained by negligence, the defendant should be accorded the same defenses that would be available in any other action grounded upon negligence). [21] [9] ¶ 26. Based on the relationship between public nuisance and negligence, especially as discussed in Brown, we conclude that public nuisance and negligence intersect in several respects. First, a public nuisance can be either intentionally or negligently maintained. See Schiro, 272 Wis. at 546. Second, although notice and causation are concepts usually reserved for negligence cases, liability for maintaining a public nuisance requires that the defendant had either actual or constructive notice of the public nuisance and that the failure to abate the public nuisance was a cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Third, for the purposes of comparing and apportioning responsibility, and determining contribution among culpable parties, we conclude that when all of the elements to establish liability for maintaining a public nuisance have been affirmatively proven, a defendant's failure to abate a public nuisance is analogous to negligence per se. Finally, similar to liability for negligence, liability for maintaining a public nuisance can be limited by public policy considerations. See Walker v. Bignell, 100 Wis. 2d 256, 265, 301 N.W.2d 447 (1981); Coffey v. City of Milwaukee, 74 Wis. 2d 526, 541, 247 N.W.2d 132 (1976). [10, 11] ¶ 27. First, a public nuisance can be maintained by either negligent or intentional conduct. [22] We recognize that this first intersection of negligence and public nuisance arises under the first element for establishing liability for maintaining a public nuisance (the existence of the public nuisance), and that is where much confusion is created. [23] The complexity of the relationship is evident, particularly when a public nuisance is negligently maintained, because one automatically wants to trigger liability by the defendant's negligent conduct. When a public nuisance is negligently maintained it is difficult to separate the conditionthe nuisance itselffrom negligent conduct that allegedly allowed maintenance of the condition/nuisance. Brown recognizes, however, that liability for maintaining a public nuisance does not depend on the defendant's negligence or want of ordinary care. Brown, 199 Wis. at 589. Instead, liability is founded on the wrongful act in [either negligently or intentionally] creating or maintaining [the nuisance]. Id. The liability is imposed for the damage done by or danger inherent in the creation or maintenance of that which constitutes a nuisance. Id. Accordingly, although either negligent or intentional conduct can result in maintenance of a public nuisance, liability for maintaining a public nuisance is predicated on the existence of the public nuisance itself. [12] ¶ 28. Since a public nuisance can arise by either negligent or intentional conduct, the first element necessary to prove liability for maintaining a public nuisance requires only the existence of the public nuisance itself. The circuit court's inquiry appropriately focuses on the dangerous condition, [24] and whether it meets the definition of public nuisance. We conclude that in this case, the court of appeals correctly interpreted Brown, by focusing first on the existence of the public nuisance itself and determining whether the tree branches obstructing the view of the stop sign resulted in a public nuisance. [13] ¶ 29. The second intersection between public nuisance and negligence involves two concepts that are oftentimes reserved for negligence casesnotice and causation. Brown demonstrates that notice is appropriately a requirement for imposing liability for maintaining a public nuisance. This court stated in Brown that maintenance of public nuisance cases are a class of cases where actual or constructive notice is required because the mere existence of danger does not create liability, unless the circumstances are such as to charge [the] defendant with notice of the existence of the danger. Brown, 199 Wis. at 589. To demonstrate the need for the notice requirement, the court stated: In such cases where danger results, not from the planting of the tree, but through subsequent changes for which the defendant is not responsible, it is essential to liability that it be shown either that the defendant knew of the danger incident to the maintenance of the tree or that such condition had existed for such length of time that, by the exercise of ordinary care, the defendant ought to have discovered the danger and to have removed it before injuries were sustained by the plaintiff. Id. at 590. The key here is that a public nuisance, especially a public nuisance that was negligently maintained, can result from changes that the defendant did not direct. The decaying tree in Brown and the growing tree here, [25] demonstrate that a public nuisance can be maintained by no action or direction on the part of the landowner. Accordingly, liability for maintaining such a public nuisance requires proof that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the public nuisance. We conclude, therefore, that it was appropriate to require the plaintiff to establish that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the defendants had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition. [14] ¶ 30. In addition to notice, we conclude that causation, another concept oftentimes reserved for negligence cases, is appropriately required to prove a public nuisance claim. Accordingly, we conclude, as did the court of appeals, that liability for maintaining a public nuisance requires proof that the failure to abate the public nuisance was a cause of the plaintiffs injuries. [15-17] ¶ 31. Another intersection of negligence and public nuisance involves the responsibility comparison and apportionment among culpable parties. We find it useful to analogize conceptually the allocation of responsibility in a public nuisance case to negligence per se [26] or negligence as a matter of law. For the purposes of comparing and apportioning responsibility for the accident and for determining contribution among the parties responsible for maintaining the nuisance, we conclude that when all of the elements necessary to establish liability for maintaining a public nuisance have been affirmatively provenexistence of the public nuisance, notice, and causationa defendant's failure to abate a public nuisance is analogous to negligence per se. [27] In order to provide for the allocation of responsibility and to determine contribution, a defendant's failure to abate a public nuisance could be treated as analogous to negligence per sethe failure to follow a legislatively prescribed minimum standard. By concluding that a defendant's failure to abate a public nuisance is analogous to negligence per se, it allows the jury to allocate responsibility among culpable parties, which is consistent with contributory negligence principles established in Wis. Stat. § 895.045 [28] and as applied in Schiro. See Schiro, 272 Wis. at 547 ([C]ontributory negligence is a defense in an action for damages occasioned by a nuisance grounded upon negligence.); see also McFarlane v. City of Niagara Falls, 160 N.E. 391, 392 (N.Y. 1928) (Judge Cardozo holding that where negligence is the basis of the nuisance contributory negligence principles apply). We conclude, therefore, that the negligence per se analogy appropriately frames the fact-finder's role to apportion responsibility and to determine contribution among culpable parties in a public nuisance case. [18-21] ¶ 32. Finally, we conclude that negligence and public nuisance intersect with regard to public policy considerations. Similar to liability for negligence, we conclude that liability for maintaining a public nuisance can be limited by public policy considerations. By examining public policy considerations we direct our attention to the question: Should a party who has maintained a public nuisance which has caused harm to another be shielded from liability on public policy grounds? The application of the public policy considerations is solely a function of the court. Coffey, 74 Wis. 2d at 541. We find sufficient reason to apply public policy considerations here, where we are analyzing liability for the alleged negligent maintenance of a public nuisance. The existence of a public nuisance, combined with notice, creates a duty to abate the nuisance because of foreseeable danger. As with negligence, however, there are circumstances where imposing liability would be unreasonable. See Walker, 100 Wis. 2d at 265; see also Miller v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 219 Wis. 2d 250, 264-265, 580 N.W.2d 233 (1998) (enumerating six policy considerations). We recognize that even though the chain of causation is complete and direct, recovery may sometimes be denied on grounds of public policy. . . . Coffey, 74 Wis. 2d at 541. Accordingly, we conclude that the court of appeals appropriately examined public policy considerations in this case.