Court Opinion

ID: 9700017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:06:46.891232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:02.837692
License: Public Domain

Edwards, J.
(dissenting). This case represents a prospective contest between the owner of a fur farm and a highway contractor as to whether the delicate condition of pregnant mink and foxes requires a halt in highway progress during the whelping season. Judge Quinn cut the contest short by holding that the declaration failed to state a cause of action.
His accurate summary of the well-pleaded facts follows:
“Plaintiff is the owner and operatoi of a mink and fox farm located on highway US-23 in Standish township, Arenac county, Michigan. Defendant is the owner of a construction company, which was engaged in the widening and construction of a bridge on US-23 immediately adjacent to plaintiff’s premises in April, 1953. That from approximately the latter part of April until July 1st is the whelping season for mink and from approximately March 15th until June 1st is the whelping season for fox, and that due to the nature of the animals, unusually loud noises during this period cause them to panic and destroy their young. That in the course of its operations, defendant employed 2 air hammers which caused loud noises and sent the mink into panic causing the damage complained of. That plaintiff *418repeatedly requested the defendant to desist from using the air hammers before and during the whelping season, and that these warnings were ignored. Plaintiff pleads that defendant knew or should have known of the peculiar nature of pregnant mink and fox with respect to loud noises; this is a conclusion not based on any facts and will not be considered by this court. Plaintiff also pleads that defendant carelessly and negligently made use of the air hammers without pleading facts to substantiate such conclusions, except for their use after his request to desist. Hence, the negligence of defendant, if any, must arise from failure to desist after warning rather than from any physical manipulation of the machines.”
This type of action is classed as nontrespassory invasion of the rights of another in the private enjoyment of land. The inherent difficulties in relation to such actions are vividly described in 4 Restatement, Torts, § 822, pp 231, 232:
“Not every substantial nontrespassory invasion of a person’s interest in the use and enjoyment of land is actionable, even where such person is the owner of the land in fee simple absolute and another’s conduct is the sole and direct cause of the invasion. Life in organized society, and especially in populous communities, involves an unavoidable clash of individual interests. Practically all human activities, unless carried on in a wilderness, interfere to some extent with others or involve some risk of interference, and these interferences range from mere trifling annoyances to serious harms. It is an obvious truth that each individual in a community must put up with a certain amount of annoyance, inconvenience and interference, and must take a certain amount of risk in order that all may get on together. The very existence of organized society depends upon the principle of ‘give and take, live and let live,’ and therefore the law of torts does *419not attempt to impose liability or shift the loss in every ease where one person’s conduct has some detrimental effect on another. Liability is imposed only in those cases where the harm or risk to one is greater than he ought to be required to bear under the circumstances, at least without compensation. In respect to unintentional invasions of another’s interests, certain broad general principles of liability have been developed. These principles are embodied in the rules governing liability for negligent, reckless and ultrahazardous conduct and apply 'to unintentional invasions of interests in the use and enjoyment of land as well as to other interests (see comment It). In respect to intentional invasions of interests, however, there are no broad general principles of liability applicable to different types of interests. In respect to certain types of interests, such as those in bodily security and in the exclusive possession of land, the law has developed strict rules of liability for intentional invasions, qualified by specific privileges. In respect to interests in the use and enjoyment of land, however, the law has developed a broader, more indefinite and more comprehensive rule of liability for intentional invasions. This rule is expressed in terms of unreasonableness, and;> as stated in this section, requires that an intentional invasion be unreasonable before one is liable for causing it.”
The general rule pertaining to such actions is given in Restatement as follows:
“§ 822. General Rule.
“The actor is liable in an action for damages for a nontrespassory invasion of another’s interest in the private use and enjoyment of land if,
(a) the other has property rights and privileges in respect to the use or enjoyment interfered with; and
(b) the invasion is substantial; and
*420(c) the actor’s conduct is a legal canse of the invasion; and
(d) the invasion is either
(1) intentional and unreasonable; or
(2) unintentional and otherwise actionable under the rules governing liability for negligent, reckless or ultrahazardous conduct.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Appellee claims that the declaration failed to state facts from which the invasion complained of could be held either intentional or unreasonable.
We believe that the declaration did fail in 2 respects to state a cause of action: First, it failed to allege facts showing that defendant was actually informed in advance of the nature and gravity of the possible harm. We decline to hold that defendant highway contractor may be charged with knowledge of the delicate temperament of pregnant mink and foxes; Second, under the rules previously cited from the Restatement, we believe the declaration was faulty in failing to allege facts which, taken as true, would establish that it was unreasonable conduct on defendant’s part to persist in use of the air hammers after knowing of the possibility of harm. Noise resulting from highway construction is such a customary and essential part of modern life that he who seeks to recover damages therefrom bears the burden of proving not only that the noise harmed him, but that there was a reasonable way by which defendant could have avoided that harm.
The 2 cases relied upon by appellant are not controlling here. In one, Hamilton v. King County, 195 Wash 84 (79 P2d 697), the defendant was actually trespassing on plaintiffs’ property. In the other, Bell v. Gray-Robinson Construction Co., 265 Wis 652 (62 NW2d 390), defendant negligently employed a power shovel without a muffler — after full *421warning of potential harm and while in obvious possession of means to avoid it.
The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. Costs to appellee.
Kavanagh, J., took no part in the decision of this case.