What are the Legal Requirements for a Cause of Action for Nuisance?

In California, the legal requirements for a nuisance was clarified in the Court of Appeal decision in Wilson v. Southern California Edison Company, that involved a homeowner–plaintiff Simona Wilson–who bought a house next door to an electrical substation operated by defendant Southern California Edison Company.

After remodeling her master bathroom four (4) years after she moved into the house, Wilson felt low levels of electricity in her remodeled shower when she adjusted the showerhead. This flow of electricity was due to neutral-to-earth voltage (NEV), also referred to as stray voltage, on her property.

Because NEV is unavoidable in a grounded electrical system, such as the one operated by Edison, Edison was unable to completely eliminate it from Wilson’s property as Wilson insisted, although it recommended ways to reduce the voltage in her shower to below-perceptible levels.

Fearing for her safety and the safety of her three children, Wilson moved out of the house into a rental property. Because she could not afford to pay both the rent on that property and the mortgage on her house, the house went into foreclosure, ruining her credit.

Wilson sued Edison for negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and nuisance, and sought punitive damages. In the first trial, the jury found in favor of Wilson on all three claims, awarding $550,000 on the negligence and IIED claims, $500,000 on the nuisance claim, and $3 million in punitive damages. Edison appealed.

In a published decision, the Court of Appeal found there was insufficient evidence to support the negligence and IIED claims or the punitive damages award, and found that the jury relied upon irrelevant evidence when determining the nuisance claim. The judgment was reversed, a new judgment was entered in favor of Edison on the negligence and IIED claims, and the case was sent back to the trial court for a retrial on the nuisance claim.

During the retrial, Wilson was allowed to present extensive evidence of incidents related to stray voltage at the house that occurred before she bought it and at other nearby properties, and Edison’s conduct with regard to those incidents. The jury again found in favor of Wilson, and awarded her $1.2 million in damages on her nuisance claim.

On appeal, Edison contended that:

            (1) It is entitled to judgment because, as a matter of law, the harm Wilson suffered cannot outweigh the public benefit of providing electricity;

            (2) It is entitled to a new trial because the trial court improperly allowed Wilson to present inflammatory irrelevant evidence related to stray voltage incidents involving prior owners or tenants of the property or other nearby properties;

            (3) It is entitled to a new trial on damages (if not a retrial on both liability and damages) because the jury improperly included in its award damages to which Wilson was not entitled, such as attorney fees; and

            (4) It is entitled to a new trial on damages (if not a retrial on both liability and damages) because the $1.2 million award was excessive.

Based upon the evidence presented at trial, the Appellate Court could not conclude as a matter of law that the harm Wilson suffered did not outweigh the public benefit of Edison’s conduct, and deferred to the jury on that issue.  But it was error to admit irrelevant evidence related to stray voltage incidents involving prior owners or tenants of the house or other properties, and the admission of that evidence was prejudicial to Edison, so the case was sent back to the Superior Court for a re-trial on the nuisance claim. 

The relevant jury instruction, CACI No. 2022, stated: “In determining whether the seriousness of the harm to Simona Wilson outweighs the public benefit of Southern California Edison’s conduct, you should consider a number of factors. To determine the seriousness of the harm Simona Wilson suffered, you should consider the following:

            (a) The extent of the harm, meaning how much the condition Southern California Edison caused interfered with Simona Wilson’s use or enjoyment of her property and how long that interference lasted; and

            (b) The character of the harm, that is, whether the harm involved a loss from the destruction or impairment of physical things that Simona Wilson was using, or her personal discomfort or annoyance.”

The critical questions were:

             (1) Did Edison create a condition that was an obstruction to the free use of property so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property;

            (2) Was this condition of such duration, nature, or amount as to have unreasonably interfered with Wilson’s use or enjoyment of her land;

            (3) Was Edison’s conduct a substantial factor in causing Wilson harm; and

            (4) Did the seriousness of the harm outweigh the public benefit of Edison’s conduct–the jury was split nine to three.

A private nuisance claim is a claim for “a nontrespassory interference with the private use and enjoyment of land.” and it requires proof of three elements:

            (1) The plaintiff must prove an “interference with the plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of that property”.

            (2) The plaintiff must prove “that the invasion of the plaintiff’s interest in the use and enjoyment of the land was substantial, i.e., that it caused the plaintiff to suffer substantial actual damage." This is a question of fact for the jury that turns on the circumstances of each case.

            (3) The interference with the protected interest must not only be substantial, but it must also be "unreasonable", i.e., it must be of such a nature, duration or amount as to constitute unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the land. The primary test for determining whether the invasion is unreasonable is whether the gravity of the harm outweighs the social utility of the defendant’s conduct, taking a number of factors into account.

In its review of the factors that determine the seriousness of the harm the plaintiff suffered, the jury should consider the following:

            (1) The extent of the harm, meaning how much the condition defendant caused interfered with plaintiff’s use or enjoyment of plaintiff's property, and how long that interference lasted.

            (2) The character of the harm, that is, whether the harm involved a loss from the destruction or impairment of physical things that plaintiff was using, or personal discomfort or annoyance.

            (3) The value that society places on the type of use or enjoyment invaded. The greater the social value of the particular type of use or enjoyment of land that is invaded, the greater is the seriousness of the harm from the invasion.

            (4) The suitability of the type of use or enjoyment invaded to the nature of the locality. The nature of a locality is based on the primary kind of activity at that location, such as residential, industrial, or other activity.

            (5) The extent of the burden (such as expense and inconvenience) placed on plaintiff to avoid the harm.

To determine the public benefit of defendant’s conduct, the jury should consider:

            (1) The value that society places on the primary purpose of the conduct that caused the interference. The primary purpose of the conduct means [name of defendant]’s main objective for engaging in the conduct. How much social value a particular purpose has depends on how much its achievement generally advances or protects the public good.     

            (2) The suitability of the conduct that caused the interference to the nature of the locality. The suitability of the conduct depends upon its compatibility to the primary activities carried on in the locality.

            (3) The practicability or impracticality of preventing or avoiding the invasion.

A finding of an actionable nuisance does not require a showing that the defendant acted unreasonably. An intentional interference with the plaintiff’s use of his property can be unreasonable even when the defendant’s conduct is reasonable. This is because a reasonable person could conclude that the plaintiff’s loss resulting from the intentional interference ought to be allocated to the defendant.

This is the type of decision that should be saved for future reference, as it provides the legal outline for a nuisance cause of action, and what needs to be proved to prevail.  It also shows how complicated an action for nuisance can be because of the competing interests in our society, and when neighbors clash, it is prudent to obtain competent legal advice.

LESSONS 

1.         A private nuisance claim is a claim for “a nontrespassory interference with the private use and enjoyment of land.” and it requires proof of three elements.

2.         The plaintiff must prove an “interference with the plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of that property”.

3.         The plaintiff must prove “that the invasion of the plaintiff’s interest in the use and enjoyment of the land was substantial, i.e., that it caused the plaintiff to suffer substantial actual damage."

4.         The interference with the protected interest must not only be substantial, but it must also be "unreasonable", i.e., it must be of such a nature, duration or amount as to constitute unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the land.

5.         The primary test for determining whether the invasion is unreasonable is whether the gravity of the harm outweighs the social utility of the defendant’s conduct, taking a number of factors into account.