Morgan v. High Penn Oil Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1953 · Property

PropertyPrivate nuisanceInjunctionsPleading and proofprivate nuisanceintentional invasionunreasonable interferenceuse and enjoyment of land

Facts

Plaintiffs owned and used land adjacent to an oil refinery operated by High Penn Oil Company. When the evidence was viewed most favorably to plaintiffs, the refinery's operation caused noxious gases and odors to escape onto plaintiffs' nine acres in recurring and annoying density, substantially impairing plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their land and home. The evidence also supported an inference that High Penn intended to continue operating in the same manner, threatening recurring irreparable injury. As to Southern Oil Transportation Company, the evidence showed ownership and control of the refinery land until September 10, 1952, and knowing permission of the refinery's operation despite plaintiffs' notice and protest, but no evidence that it actively participated in construction or operation of the refinery.

Issue

Whether the evidence was sufficient to show an actionable and abatable private nuisance against High Penn Oil Company without proof of negligence, and whether plaintiffs could recover against Southern Oil Transportation Company on the theory pleaded. The court also considered whether an erroneous jury instruction on nuisance required a new trial for High Penn.

Rule

Private nuisance is a field of tort liability protecting the interest in the private use and enjoyment of land. Any substantial nontrespassory invasion of that interest may be a private nuisance; the invasion is intentional when the actor acts for the purpose of causing it, knows it is resulting from his conduct, or knows it is substantially certain to result. A person is liable for an intentional private nuisance when his conduct is unreasonable under the circumstances, and one who intentionally creates or maintains a private nuisance is liable regardless of the degree of care exercised. Recovery cannot be had on matters proved but not alleged, or alleged but not proved.

🔒

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 Akron, Ohio, Lena Ortiz owns a small house next to a plastics-heating facility operated by Summit Crest Materials. The facility uses modern equipment, but after repeated complaints the manager admits he knows thick chemical odors drift onto Lena's yard several evenings each week, making it impossible for her family to sit outside or open windows.

If Lena sues for private nuisance, which is the strongest argument for liability?

Explanation. Private nuisance protects the interest in the private use and enjoyment of land. Under the majority rule, any substantial nontrespassory invasion may qualify. If the defendant knows the invasion is resulting from its conduct or is substantially certain to result, the invasion is intentional; if unreasonable under the circumstances, liability follows regardless of the degree of care exercised. A lawful business is not a nuisance per se, but it can still be a nuisance in fact.