Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Animal Feeding Operations

Nuisance Verdict Reversed Due to Lack of Certainty of Harm

Eric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

The Supreme Court of Georgia, in Terrell v. Payne, 622 S.E.2d 330 (Ga. 2005), reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and held that the evidence was insufficient to show that the poultry houses at issue would constitute a nuisance.

Background

Neighboring property owners (neighbors) brought a nuisance action to enjoin the construction of chicken houses in the vicinity, alleging that the poultry houses would create a nuisance if constructed in the planned location. Id. at 331. Specifically, the neighbors alleged the operation of the poultry houses would attract insects, create excessive dust and noxious odors, and expose them to toxic pollutants. Id. The trial court found for the chicken house developers (developers) and the neighbors appealed. Id. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, finding that the trial court erred as a matter of law when it rejected the neighbors' nuisance claim. Id. The developers appealed. Id.

Arguments

The neighbors argued that the Court of Appeals, in applying the law of prospective nuisance, correctly determined that the trial court erred as a matter of law when it declined the neighbors' request to permanently enjoin construction of four industrial-sized chicken houses. Id.

The developers countered that the Court of Appeals incorrectly applied the standard for enjoining a prospective nuisance. Id. In reversing the trial court's decision to deny an injunction barring the construction of four poultry houses in Franklin County, the developers asserted that the Court of Appeals ruled contrary to sound science and relevant governmental and consensus standards, and that short-duration exposure to low levels of ammonia from poultry houses to be constructed did not constitute a prospective nuisance. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals, in determining that the trial court erred as a matter of law by rejecting the neighbors nuisance claim, "relied on selectively chosen evidentiary items included in the fact portion of the trial court's order to reach its conclusion." Id. The court found that the appellate court relied on a summary of testimony provided at the hearing rather than formal findings of fact by the trial judge. Id. In finding that the chicken houses would not create a nuisance, the trial court clearly determined that the evidence (including locality and character of the community, insufficient duration of unpleasant and irritating experiences) lacked reasonable certainty to justify the cause of action. Id. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and ruled the trial court applied the appropriate standard for a nuisance that has yet not been erected. Id.

The case was decided on November 21, 2005.