Opinion ID: 894611
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Source or Injury

Text: The parties also disagree whether the test of frequency and constancy should focus on the defendant's operations or the plaintiff's injury. Here again, Texas opinions can be cited for either position, sometimes focusing on the defendant's operations, [81] and other times on the plaintiff's injuries. [82] For example, in Bayouth v. Lion Oil Co., we held underground seepage of saltwater from an old drilling site could be considered temporary (creating a fact question) because it was visible on the plaintiff's property only after periods of heavy rain. [83] But in Walton v. Phillips Petroleum Co., the Eighth Court of Appeals held similar seepage was permanent as a matter of law, as there was nothing temporary about the pit from which it came. [84] Opinions from other states reflect the same conflicts: some focus solely on the defendant's operations, [85] some on the plaintiff's injuries, [86] and some view the two together. [87] While the facts of particular cases have often directed our focus to the sending-or receiving-end of a nuisance, it appears that we have generally considered a nuisance permanent when either the defendant's operations or the plaintiff's injuries make it so: When a nuisance is created by the construction of works in their nature permanent,... the rule is that all damages resulting therefrom to property may be recovered in one action, and the proper measure of damages is the depreciation in the value of the property. That rule also applies when the injury resulting from the nuisance is of a permanent character. [88] We believe this is still the correct rule. In most nuisance cases, a permanent source will result in permanent interference. Ordinarily it makes no difference whether the jury finds that the nuisance is permanent or the damage is permanent, since a permanent nuisance may be presumed to result in permanent damage. [89] Moreover, focusing solely on the source or injury to categorize nuisances could lead to anomalous results. For example, if a defendant's operations permanently decrease market values in a neighborhood containing both year-round residences and vacation homes, the nuisance cannot be deemed permanent as to the former but temporary as to the rest. A resident cannot convert a constant interference into a temporary nuisance by going outside only sporadically; nor can a plant operator accomplish the same by shutting down operations for a few weeks. [90] Of course, the presumption that a constant source has constant effects may be rebutted. Texas law has long recognized there may be a discontinuity between source and injury, as when injury occurs only after a heavy rain in regions where that is a rare commodity. [91] But air and wind are more evenly distributed; air-quality complaints like those here may be worse under certain conditions, but no one would presume the wind will never change. As we clarify today, a recurrent nuisance is a permanent one, even if it is difficult to predict what the weather will be on any particular day. Accordingly, we hold that a permanent nuisance may be established by showing that either the plaintiff's injuries or the defendant's operations are permanent. The presumption of a connection between the two can be rebutted by evidence that a defendant's noxious operations cause injury only under circumstances so rare that, even when they occur, it remains uncertain whether or to what degree they may ever occur again.