Vogel v. Grant-Lafayette Electric Cooperative

Supreme Court of Wisconsin · Torts

TortsPrivate nuisanceNegligenceStray voltageprivate nuisancestray voltagenontrespassory invasionuse and enjoyment of land

Facts

The Vogels operated a dairy farm and, after building a new milking facility, experienced erratic cow behavior, chronic mastitis, reduced milk production, and repeated culling. In 1986 they contacted GLEC, suspecting excessive stray voltage delivered through a multi-grounded neutral electrical system. GLEC installed an isolator, after which the herd's problems improved immediately, and later made numerous visits to test and respond to concerns. The Vogels sued for negligence and nuisance, and the jury found GLEC negligent, found a nuisance, awarded economic damages and annoyance-and-inconvenience damages, and attributed one-third causal negligence to the Vogels.

Issue

Whether excessive stray voltage may support a private nuisance claim as an invasion of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of land. Also, whether the nuisance should have been submitted as an intentional invasion, which would prevent reduction for contributory negligence, or instead as an unintentional invasion actionable under negligence.

Rule

Private nuisance is a nontrespassory invasion of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of land, and that interest includes more than physical invasion of land itself, including disturbance of usability, comfort, and enjoyment. Excessive stray voltage may constitute such an invasion, but whether it unreasonably interferes with the private use and enjoyment of land is for the trier of fact. A nuisance is intentional only if the actor acts for the purpose of causing the invasion or knows it is resulting or is substantially certain to result; when the invasion is unintentional and otherwise actionable under negligence, contributory negligence is a defense.

🔒

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.

Nina Patel owns a horse stable outside Madison, Wisconsin. After she contracts with Badger Valley Power Cooperative for electrical service, a defect in the cooperative's distribution system causes recurring bursts of electrical current through metal stall fixtures, making the horses panic and causing Nina to avoid using part of the barn.

If Nina sues for private nuisance, the cooperative's best argument is that she requested electrical service. How should the court rule?

Explanation. Private nuisance protects against a nontrespassory invasion of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of land. The majority held that requesting a beneficial service does not negate invasion when the complained-of condition is an excessive harmful byproduct not requested. Nuisance is not limited to physical alteration of land. (Derived from Vogel v. Grant-Lafayette Electric Cooperative (n.d.).)