Brown v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 18536
| Decision Date | 11 May 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 18536,18536 |
| Citation | 210 Ga. 580,82 S.E.2d 12 |
| Parties | BROWN v. TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE CORP. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. While a gas distribution station constructed by a public service common carrier engaged in interestate commerce for the purpose of distributing natural gas and operating under a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the Federal Power Commission, is not a nuisance per se, nevertheless, it may become such by the negligent manner of its operation, and under the pleadings and evidence in this case a judgment in favor of the defendant was not demanding, denying the injunctive relief sought.
2. The trial judge who heard the issues involved in the present case, having stated in his judgment, 'after consideration of the evidence and after personally visiting the area in the vicinity of the plant of the defendant, it is ordered that interlocutory injunction be and it is hereby denied,' and it thus appearing that the judge's personal visitation of the area in the vicinity of the defendant's plant was made an integral part of his judgment, without the consent of the parties or their counsel, the judgment is reversed, with direction that the case be heard upon the evidence which may be introduced, unless visitation by the judge as a part of the proceedings be had with the consent of both parties.
Isham H. Brown filed a petition in Fulton Superior Court against the Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation which alleged substantially the following: Petitioner is the owner of a described house and lot in a residential area of the City of Bowman, Elbert County, Georgia, which he occupies as his home with his wife and children. In October and November, 1951, the defendant constructed a natural gas pipe line on premises adjacent to petitioner's residence and in connection therewith erected a gas pumping and distribution station approximately 125 yards from petitioner's dwelling house. Since November, 1951, the defendant has continually allowed large quantities of an odorizing gas, which is mixed by the defendant with the natural gas, to escape over the dwelling house of petitioner. The odorizing gas has floated over into the air surrounding petitioner's house and lot and has continuously polluted the air. It has an obnoxious, unpleasant and objectionable odor and penetrates throughout the petitioner's dwelling house. On different occasions it nauseated him when he sat down to his meals and caused him to suffer headaches and is injurious to his health. It has caused much discomfort to him and members of his family, and the continual discharge of the odorizing gas constitutes a continuing nuisance. The defendant has been negligent in failing to seal up the leaks around the pipes from which the gas is escaping. On three separate occasions petitioner informed the defendant and its agents of the nuisance and requested that it take measures to corfect it. The stench of the odorizing gas was frequently so annoying and discomforting to petitioner and his family that they left the premises until the intensity of the odor subsided. By reason of the defendant's maintenance of the nuisance the value of petitioner's property has been greatly decreased. The damages suffered by petitioner are irreparable, he has no adequate remedy at law, and a multiplicity of suits will result unless the defendant is restrained by the court. The prayers, besides for process and a rule nisi, were: That the defendant be enjoined from further discharging the ordorizing gas; that petitioner be allowed damages in stated amounts; that he have general equitable relief.
The defendant filed an answer in which it denied material allegations of the petition. At the interlocutory hearing the evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses supported the allegations of the petition.
V. R. McGehee, a District Superintendent of the defendant deposed in part: The first type of odorizer which was installed by the defendant in the district in question operated on the same principle as the old fashioned lamp, that is, by a wick which extends into the main line of the gas with the other end in the odorizing liquid. The gas passing over the wick thus absorbed the odorant. The defendant had installed 21 of the wick type odorizers when it first began having trouble with leakage. Investigation developed the fact that leakage was due to a faulty construction in the odorizers arising from the fact that the parts were fabricated at different plants and it was impossible to fit them together so as to prevent any leakage of the odorant. In an effort to correct the situation the defendant converted to a pressure-type odorizer, the principal benefit of which is that it has fewer openings and permits the welding of all outside joints, thus preventing the escape of any ordorant. The four odorizing units which defendant installed at Bowman, Georgia, which are in controversy in this suit were first installed from time to time during the period commencing about February, 1951, and ending about April, 1951, although some of them did not go into use until the first part of 1952. At the time defendant installed its odorizers the cities of Bowman, Elberton, Royston and Toccoa installed and operated similar units of their own. Subsequently, all of these cities have abandoned such odorizing units, but the tanks belonging to such cities are still on the premises with the exception of Elberton which has been removed. After the defendant began using these odorizers they would from time to time find small leaks which were permitting the escape of some odorant. As promptly as leaks were discovered they were repaired or if necessary the leaking equipment was replaced with new parts. Subsequently, all the wick-type odorizers were converted into pressure-type odorizers and all of the joints where there was any possibility of the odorant escaping were welded. At the present time these odorizers have been operating for several months with no trace of a leak of any kind and the installations as now constituted are the best that the defendant has been able to obtain or devise. On several occasions when the defendant received complaints that its equipment was leaking odorant it found upon checking that the leakage was not in its equipment, but was coming from the equipment owned by the above named cities. Since the pressure-type odorizers were installed there has been no noticeable leakage.
There was also evidence of other witnesses for the defendant who lived in the vicinity...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lillie v. U.S.
...without notice or consent of parties, based on view decided wagon driver's testimony not credible); Brown v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 210 Ga. 580, 82 S.E.2d 12, 15-16 (1954) (judge visited site without consent or notice to parties and used view as integral part of judgment); Lo......
-
Brookhaven Supply Co. v. DeKalb County, 50336
...during the presentation of the evidence by either party. A jury view may be had over objection by a party, Brown v. Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corp., 210 Ga. 580, 585, 82 S.E.2d 12; Moore v. Macon Coca Cola Bottling Co., 180 Ga. 335, 178 S.E. 711, and 'rests in the discretion of the tria......
-
Evans v. City of Eufaula
...cases held such action to be reversible error if the view formed an integral part of the court's judgment. Brown v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 210 Ga. 580, 82 S.E.2d 12; Atlantic & B. Ry. Co. v. City of Cordele, 125 Ga. 373, 54 S.E. The city cites cases from other jurisdictions c......
-
State Highway Dept. v. Andrus
...nature of the machinery used by the defendant and the method used by it in bottling the coca-cola.' In Brown v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 210 Ga. 580, 585, 82 S.E.2d 12, 15, it was stated: 'While it is the law of this State that a trial judge may permit the jury to view the prem......