Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co.

New York Court of Appeals · 1970 · Torts

Tortsnuisanceremediesinjunctiondamagesbalancingprivate nuisanceequitable remedy

Facts

Defendant operated a large cement plant near Albany, with an investment exceeding $45,000,000 and more than 300 employees. Neighboring landowners alleged that dirt, smoke, and vibration from the plant damaged their properties. The trial court found that defendant maintained a nuisance and awarded damages for harm up to the time of trial, and it also found total permanent damages to all plaintiffs of $185,000 as a possible settlement basis. Despite the nuisance finding and substantial damages, the lower courts denied an injunction because of the large disparity between the plaintiffs' losses and the economic consequences of shutting down the plant.

Issue

When a nuisance has been found and plaintiffs have shown substantial damage, may a court deny an absolute injunction because of the large disparity between plaintiffs' harm and the economic consequences of shutting down the defendant's operation? If not, may the court instead grant an injunction that is vacated upon payment of permanent damages to the injured landowners?

Rule

In New York, where a nuisance has been found and the complaining party has shown substantial, not unsubstantial, damage, an injunction ordinarily follows notwithstanding a marked disparity in economic consequences between the nuisance and the injunction. But a court of equity may condition the continuance or vacatur of that injunction on the defendant's payment of permanent damages that fully compensate plaintiffs for the total present and future economic loss to their property, thereby terminating the private litigation and imposing a servitude on the land.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Ohio, Willow Peak Brickworks operates a kiln outside Toledo. A court finds that soot and low-grade vibrations from the plant have caused recurring, measurable damage to Dana Ortiz's nearby rental property, but shutting the plant would impose losses far exceeding Dana's harm.

Which remedy is most consistent with the majority rule?

Explanation. Once a nuisance and substantial damage are found, the ordinary New York rule is that injunctive relief follows despite a marked disparity in economic consequences. But the majority approved an equitable modification: the court may grant an injunction that is vacated upon payment of permanent damages fully compensating the plaintiff for all present and future loss. The court rejected outright denial of an injunction based solely on economic disparity, and it did not treat private litigation as displaced by public regulation.