Court Opinion

ID: 9444051
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:39:21.725454+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:41.537242
License: Public Domain

RUSSELL, Circuit Judge
(specially concurring).
In my opinion, the facts of this case take it without the rule that one who has licensed a nuisance may not recover damages which flow from its existence. The property in question was sold by Mrs. Marek to the defendant’s predecessor in title for the operation of a plant of the described kind, without specification' of size or. exemption from liability for creation of a nuisance. By the verdict of the jury, in answering the special issue on the question of limitations, it is established that not only can such a plant be operated without becoming a nuisance, but that the plant in question was operated for a period of four years without becoming one. Furthermore, the trial judge found that “the offensive noise and vibration” “was not a necessary incident of the operation of such plants. - The plant in question operated from 1945 until the fall of 1949 without objectionable consequences. The defendant’s own evidence shows that of the ten or twelve additional plants which it operates in other sections of the country, some of which are located in well inhabited areas, no complaint has ever been received.” It is therefore unquestioned that such plants can be, and are, operated without creating a nuisance as to adjacent land owners. In these circumstances, as recognized by the trial judge, the grant of land for the purpose of operating a plant, standing alone, should not be; held, as a matter of law, to estop the grantor or her privies from asserting a claim for damages when, and if the plant is so operated as to become a nuisance.
HOLMES, Circuit Judge, concurs in the above opinion by Judge RUSSELL.