Court Opinion

ID: 9577170
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:32:21.063193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:03.994824
License: Public Domain

*518WILLIAMS, Justice
(dissenting).
I am unable to agree with the majority opinion in this case.
In the court below, 14 numbered instructions were given to the jury; of these, some 6 or 7 were “stock instructions”. I am convinced that 2 of the remaining 7 or 8 were fundamentally in error.
Plaintiff’s cause of action is based upon the existence of a private nuisance. No question of negligence is involved. By instruction number 9, the jury were told in substance that before they could find for plaintiff, they must find that defendant’s business was being conducted in an unreasonable manner. Plaintiff argued this question in his brief, and it is disposed of in part in the majority opinion by a quotation from British-American Oil Producing Co. v. McClain, 191 Okl. 40, 126 P.2d 530 to the effect that
“An-unreasonable interference with the owner’s peaceful occuupancy * * * constitutes the taking of or damage to the premises * * * and the aggrieved party may recover * * (Emphasis supplied.)
I believe that the majority opinion does not properly distinguish between an “unreasonable interference” and operating a business in an “unreasonable manner”. A careful reading of the British-American case, supra, and cases cited therein, convinces me that in a case such as this, where the cause of action concerns a private nuisance and not negligence, the question of the reasonableness or unreasonableness of defendant’s methods is absolutely beside the point.
By instruction number 7, the jury were told in substance that for an act or omission to be deemed the proximate cause of the injury, the injury must have been such as could have been reasonably foreseen by a prudent person exercising due care. This is admittedly the law in negligence cases, but in my opinion it is inapplicable here. The measure of proof required in cases involving a private nuisance is aptly stated as follows in the British-American case, supra:
“Where the facts show that a lawful business is being conducted in such manner as to constitute a private nui-sanee causing substantial injury to property, the aggrieved party may recover compensation for the injury sustained.”
As is evident, the question of whether defendant should reasonably have anticipated the injury to plaintiff is not involved; neither is the question of whether defendant’s business methods were reasonable.
I believe that plaintiff herein was unduly burdened with two requirements not contemplated by the applicable law, and I am unable to agree with the majority opinion that other instructions corrected the errors in question.
I therefore respectfully dissent.