Carpenter v. The Double R Cattle Company, Inc.

Idaho Court of Appeals · 1983 · Torts

669 P.2d 643 (1983)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsNuisancePrivate nuisanceDamagesInjunctive reliefJury instructionsintentional invasionuse and enjoyment of land

Facts

A group of homeowners alleged that expansion of a nearby cattle feedlot caused noxious odors, air and water pollution, noise, and pests affecting their properties. The case was tried to a jury on both damages and injunctive relief, with the jury apparently acting as factfinder on nuisance and damages and in an advisory capacity on equitable relief. The trial court instructed the jury to weigh the homeowners' injury against the feedlot's social value and to consider the interests of the community as a whole in deciding whether a nuisance existed. The jury returned a general verdict finding that no nuisance existed.

Issue

What legal test governs whether an intended use of property that incidentally causes adverse effects on neighboring land constitutes a nuisance, and did the trial court err by instructing the jury to decide nuisance by weighing the alleged injury against the social value of the feedlot and the interests of the community as a whole?

Rule

For an intentional invasion of another's interest in the use and enjoyment of land, nuisance exists under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 826 if either: (a) the gravity of the harm outweighs the utility of the actor's conduct, or (b) the harm is serious and the financial burden of compensating for this and similar harm to others would not make continuation of the conduct not feasible. Utility of the defendant's conduct is a proper factor in determining injunctive relief and in applying § 826(a), but it does not bar damages where § 826(b) is satisfied. Coming to the nuisance is not a complete bar, but only a factor relevant to evaluating the seriousness of the harm.

🔒

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 Boise, Silver Mesa Brickworks operates a kiln that emits fine grit and sulfur odors onto nearby homes. The company knows the emissions regularly reach the neighborhood, but the plant supplies an essential construction material to southern Idaho and shutting it down would significantly disrupt local building projects. Several homeowners prove the interference is substantial, recurring, and more severe than ordinary conditions in that industrial-residential fringe area, and that paying affected neighbors would not make brick production infeasible.

If the homeowners seek damages for private nuisance, which is the best result?

Explanation. For intentional invasions, nuisance exists if either § 826(a) is met or § 826(b) is met. Under § 826(b), damages are available when the harm is serious and the financial burden of compensating for this and similar harm would not make continuation of the activity not feasible. The majority rejected treating social value or community benefit as a complete defense to damages.