Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Agriculture and Urbanization

Construction of Poultry House Would
Constitute Nuisance

Bhargavi Motukuri
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant

Summary of Decision

In Payne v. Terrell, 604 S.E.2d 551 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004) the Georgia Court of Appeals held that evidence produced before a trial court was sufficient to establish that the construction of poultry houses would constitute a nuisance and deprive property owners the legitimate use of their property.

Background

Plaintiffs Barbara Payne and several of her relatives lived 450 feet away from the site where defendants Louise and William Terrell proposed to construct commercial poultry houses. See id. The plaintiffs brought an action for nuisance against the defendants, alleging that the proposed construction of the poultry houses would create environmental pollution by emitting ammonia and would cause injury to the plaintiffs' health and to their enjoyment of their property. See id. The trial court held that the defendants' commercial poultry houses would not create a nuisance as their proposal was consistent with the locality and the character of the community. See id. Aggrieved by the decision of trial court, the plaintiffs appealed to the Georgia Court of Appeals. See id.

Arguments

The plaintiffs argued that the trial court erred in its findings of fact and in its consideration of the evidence. See id. The plaintiffs also claimed that the trial court erred as a matter of law in concluding that the proposed construction would not constitute a nuisance. See id. The plaintiffs further argued that the trial court's conclusion that the proposed construction was consistent with the locality and character of the community was not legally determinative. See id.

Analysis and Holding

The court explained that "nuisance is anything that causes hurt, inconvenience, or damage to another and the fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful shall not keep it from being a nuisance." Id. The court also explained that the standard to be considered when determining the potential nuisance is "the location in which otherwise permissible enterprise is to be performed." Id. (citing May v. Brueshaber, 466 S.E.2d 196 (Ga. 1995). Relying in part upon the trial court's finding that "there will be unpleasant irritating experiences" with the proposed poultry construction, the court held that the construction would constitute a nuisance. See id.

The case was decided on August 24, 2004; this summary was posted Mar. 21, 2005.