Opinion ID: 1034411
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: MMSD's nuisance

Text: ¶42 In this case, Bostco proved that MMSD negligently caused a continuing private nuisance due to the manner in which MMSD chose to maintain the Deep Tunnel.23 MMSD had notice that excessively siphoning groundwater from around Bostco's building was interfering with Bostco's use and enjoyment of its property by damaging the foundation of the building. ¶43 Here, in contrast to the City of Milwaukee case, no further fact-finding is required before concluding that MMSD is under a duty to abate. MMSD knew that excessive siphoning of water into the Deep Tunnel was a cause of significant harm to Bostco's building, and MMSD could have abated the nuisance, i.e., stopped the excessive siphoning, by reasonable means and at a reasonable cost.24 Accordingly, the circuit court properly 23 See Sunnyside Feed Co. v. City of Portage, 222 Wis. 2d 461, 470, 588 N.W.2d 278 (Ct. App. 1998) (defining a continuing nuisance as an ongoing or repeated disturbance or harm that can be discontinued or abated). 24 This is a fact question that was resolved by the jury. Question No. 11 of the Special Verdict asked: Can the District abate the interference by reasonable means and at a reasonable cost so that it no longer interferes with Boston Store's use and enjoyment of their building? The jury answered this question, Yes. 22 No. 2007AP221 & 2007AP1440 concluded that MMSD was required to abate the private nuisance caused by MMSD's negligent maintenance of the Deep Tunnel.25