Opinion ID: 1540607
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: private and public nuisance

Text: In its amended complaint Hydro asserted that Kayser-Roth's actions gave rise to a cause of action sounding in nuisance. Relying primarily on Wood v. Picillo, 443 A.2d 1244 (R.I. 1982), Hydro contended that contamination of the site by Kayser-Roth's subsidiary created both a private and a public nuisance for which it must be held liable. Private and public nuisances are two distinct causes of action relating to the unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of land. Historically the law of private nuisance has been applied to conflicts between neighboring, contemporaneous land uses. Philadelphia Electric Co., 762 F.2d at 314 & n. 9; Wellesley Hills Realty Trust, 747 F. Supp. at 98. Under Rhode Island law it is well settled that a cause of action for a private nuisance arises from the unreasonable use of one's property that materially interferes with a neighbor's physical comfort or the neighbor's use of his real estate. (Emphasis added.) Weida v. Ferry, 493 A.2d 824, 826 (R.I. 1985). Accord Citizens for Preservation of Waterman Lake v. Davis, 420 A.2d 53, 59 (R.I. 1980). The offensive condition therefore must originate outside the plaintiff's land, Wilson Auto Enterprises, Inc., 778 F. Supp. at 106; Wellesley Hills Realty Trust, 747 F. Supp. at 98, in contrast to the instant action, in which Hydro seeks recovery for conditions originating from its own property. Hydro, the vendee of property whose conditions vendor Kayser-Roth allegedly created, claimed that the contamination has interfered with its use of that property. Under common law, a current owner cannot assert a private-nuisance claim against a prior owner for contamination that occurred before the sale. Philadelphia Electric Co., 762 F.2d at 314-15; Wilson Auto Enterprises, Inc., 778 F. Supp. at 106; Wellesley Hills Realty Trust, 747 F. Supp. at 98-99; Amland Properties Corp. v. Aluminum Company of America, 711 F. Supp. 784, 808 & n. 24 (D.N.J. 1989); Sheehy v. Lipton Industries, Inc., 24 Mass. App. Ct. 188, 191-92, 507 N.E.2d 781, 783 (1987). Accordingly, Hydro is precluded from pursuing a private-nuisance action against its predecessor-in-interest, Kayser-Roth. Unlike a private nuisance where there is an invasion of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of land, a public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public. Citizens for Preservation of Waterman Lake, 420 A.2d at 59. Not everyone affected by a public nuisance, however, has standing to pursue an action to recover damages created by the nuisance. Only private individuals who `suffer[] special damage, distinct from that common to the public' may maintain an action for a public nuisance. Iafrate v. Ramsden, 96 R.I. 216, 222, 190 A.2d 473, 476 (1963). Accord Radigan v. W.J. Halloran Co., 97 R.I. 122, 128, 196 A.2d 160, 163 (1963). To meet the special damage requirement, the individual must have suffered harm of a kind different from that suffered by other members of the public exercising the right common to the general public that was the subject of interference.  (Emphasis added.) 4 Restatement (Second) Torts § 821C(1) (1979). The special damage that Hydro is alleged to have suffered is the loss of the use and/or value of the land forfeited in settlement of the CERCLA action. Hydro, however, has not suffered this special damage in the exercise of a right common to the general public. The public right that has been interfered with by the contamination of the land is the right to pure water. Hydro did not allege that it suffered special damages stemming from Kayser-Roth's interference with Hydro's use and enjoyment of the groundwater at the site or of its right to pure water. See Mayor and Council of Rockaway v. Klockner & Klockner, 811 F. Supp. 1039, 1056-57 (D.N.J. 1993). Hydro, rather, maintained that it suffered pecuniary harm in the forfeiture of the land. The CERCLA action that resulted in forfeiture of the land was brought against Hydro because of Hydro's status as current owner of the contaminated land. Therefore, the alleged damages suffered by Hydro were in Hydro's exercise of its private-property right, not in the exercise of a public right. See Philadelphia Electric Co., 762 F.2d at 316. Thus, because Hydro's harm was not suffered in the exercise of a right common to the general public, Hydro lacks standing to pursue a public-nuisance action.