Glace v. Town of Pilot Mountain, 765

• Decision Date: 23 July 1965
• Docket Number: No. 765,765
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Kenneth W. GLACE and wife, Frances Glace, v. The TOWN OF PILOT MOUNTAIN.

Page 78

143 S.E.2d 78

265 N.C. 181

Kenneth W. GLACE and wife, Frances Glace, v. The TOWN OF PILOT MOUNTAIN.

No. 765.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 23, 1965.

Hudson, Ferrell, Petree, Stockton, Stockton & Robinson, W. F. Maready, R. C. Vaughn, Jr., Norwood Robinson, Winston-Salem, for plaintiffs.

Norman & Reid, Pilot Mountain, for defendant.

RODMAN, Justice.

DEFENDANT'S APPEAL

If a municipal corporation, by the construction and operation of a sewage disposal system or other facility, pollutes the air or otherwise creates a nuisance, permanent in character, thereby diminishing the value of property in proximity to the operation, the municipality is liable for the damage done. Since a municipality has the right to condemn property for the construction and operation of sewage systems and related facilities, permanent damages may, at the instance of the property owner, be assessed when the maintenance of the facility in a non-negligent manner results in injury to the property of an abutting owner, amounting to a limited taking. These principles have been declared so repeatedly and consistently that they are not now open to question. Spaugh v. Winston-Salem, 249 N.C. 194, 105 S.E.2d 610; Eller v. Board of Education, 242 N.C. 584, 89 S.E.2d 144; McKinney v. High Point, 237 N.C. 66, 74 S.E.2d 440; McLean v. Mooresville, 237 N.C. 498, 75 S.E.2d 327; City of Raleigh v. Edwards, 235 N.C. 671, 71 S.E.2d 396; Veazey v. City of Durham, 232 N.C. 744, 59 S.E.2d 429; Bruton v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 217 N.C. 1, 6 S.E.2d 822; Ivester v. Winston-Salem, 215 N.C. 1, 1 S.E.2d 88; Clinard v. Kernersville, 215 N.C. 745, 3 S.E.2d 267; Bray v. High Point, 203 N.C. 756, 166 S.E. 911; Wagner v. Town of Conover, 200 N.C. 82, 156 S.E. 167; Rhodes v. City of Durham, 165 N.C. 679, 81 S.E. 938; Donnell v. City of Greensboro, 164 N.C. 330, 80 S.E. 377; Moser v. City of Burlington, 162 N.C. 141, 78 S.E. 74.

The jury could find from the evidence: Plaintiffs' home is situate on the south side of N. C. Highway 268. The lot contains 1.8 acres. It is situate 'a short distance' west of Pilot Mountain. Plaintiffs purchased the lot in 1947. They erected a home in 1948. They lived there until 1962. In 1959, defendant remodeled its sewage disposal system. It constructed two lagoons, which have a surface are of 5 acres. They vary in depth, averaging perhaps 4 or 5 feet. They have concrete sides. The effluent from the town's sewers emptied into the lagoons. Work on the lagoons was completed in the late summer or fall of 1959. No objectionable odors were observed at that time, but in April or May 1960, 'these ponds deteriorated and got real ripe and commenced to smell and the ponds just ceased to function as proper ponds and started issuing these horrible odors. The odors are so horrible it is really hard to put it in words.' When not supplied with adequate oxygen, 'the sulphur comes off in the gas such as hydrogen sulphide. * * * this gas smells like rotten eggs. It is also toxic. The word 'toxic' means poisonous. * * * it kills people, animals.'

Defendant's lot, on which the lagoons were constructed, is on the opposite side of the driveway from plaintiffs' home. One of the lagoons is only 100 yards from plaintiffs' property, and 500 feet from plaintiffs' residence. The odors are less intense on bright, sunshiny days than on cloudy days or at night.

Witnesses for plaintiffs and for defendant disagreed with respect to the intensity of the odors and the frequency with which the fumes pollute the atmosphere surrounding plaintiffs' property. Defendant's witnesses estimate the deleterious odors can be detected only one-third of the time. Plaintiffs' witnesses assign a much higher percentage of time in which plaintiffs' home is affected by the pollution.

Witnesses for plaintiffs and for defendant disagree as to the amount of damage which plaintiffs have suffered. Plaintiffs' witnesses put the damage at $18,000-$20,000. Defendant's witnesses estimate the damage at $500-$1,000. Male plaintiff, a chemical engineer with extensive experience in sanitary engineering, protested the construction of the lagoons in 1959, and prophesied the result of which he is now complaining.

The effective method of reducing or eliminating the odors is the incorporatoin of oxygen in the effluent. Defendant sought by various means to eliminate or control the production of gas. It used aerators. It raised and lowered the water level in the ponds. It also used sodium nitrate. The Town Clerk and Treasurer testified: 'Incidentally, it's [sodium nitrate] the only thing we have found which will work. However, it is too doggoned expensive. We can't use it on a continuing basis. We have been using it when the order got obnoxious.'

Plaintiffs moved from their home to Elkin in 1962. They assigned as the reason for moving the offensive odors emanating from the lagoons. Defendant, in an effort to rectify the conditions complained of, has let contracts for the construction of aerators. These aerators will, by paddles stirring the water, mechanically incorporate oxygen. To construct these aerators, it was necessary to drain the lagoons. Defendant, some 5 or 6 weeks prior to the trial, drained the lagoons. After the drainage, no offensive odors were given off.

Defendant asserts that since the nuisance had terminated, plaintiffs were not entitled to permanent damages.

There is no intent on the part of defendant to abandon its sewage system, or the use of the lagoons. The lagoons will be empty only so long as necessary to install the aerators.

The jury has found the operation has impaired, and will continue to impair, the value of plaintiffs' property. Plaintiffs' right of action can not be defeated by temporary cessation of use, or by a change in the manner in which the plant is operated. The rule here applicable was stated by Moore, J. in Midgett v. North Carolina State Highway Commission, 260 N.C. 241, 132 S.E.2d 599. He said: 'Once the cause of action has occurred by the infliction of damage to the property, the taking is a fait accompli. This is true because the government had the authority to invade the property rights of the landowner and to appropriate them to public use in the first instance, and the owner had no right to abate the nuisance. His only remedy is a single action for permanent damage to this property by reason of the taking. The government has an easement to continue the obstruction permanently, and whether it will continue to maintain the obstruction, alter it, or remove it altogether is optional with the government.'

The court properly overruled defendant's motion for nonsuit. It properly submitted the issue of permanent damages to the jury.

The court instructed the jury that plaintiffs could only recover 'for the impairment of the market value of the property by noxious odors as alleged in the Complaint.' Defendant complains of this charge. But when the charge is read as a whole, and interpreted in the light of the evidence, we do not think the jury could have misunderstood the yardstick given it to measure the amount of compensation due plaintiffs, that is, the difference between the fair market value of the property before the taking and the fair market value of the property immediately following the taking.

The yardstick the jury was instructed to use is not subject to criticism by defendant. Barnes v. North Carolina State Highway Commission, 250 N.C. 378, 109 S.E.2d 219; City of Statesville v. Anderson, 245 N.C. 208, 95 S.E.2d 591; Gallimore v. State Highway and Public Works Highway Comm., 241 N.C. 350, 85 S.E.2d 392. Whether plaintiffs could complain because the jury was not informed of its right to allow interest does not arise on defendant's exceptions.

Having protested the installation of lagoons in close proximity to his home, male plaintiff, in the spring of 1961, sent a telegram to the city officials, stating the 'sewage stench forces me to abandon my home.' Plaintiff was permitted, over defendant's objection, to read the telegram. True, plaintiffs did not leave their home until some months later, but the message was competent to corroborate plaintiffs' testimony that the air was malodorous, and not sweetly perfumed. Walker v. Continental Baking Co., 262 N.C. 534, 138 S.E.2d 33; Stott v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 205 N.C. 521, 171 S.E. 858; Stansbury's N.C. Evidence, § 51.

Feme plaintiff was permitted, over defendant's objection, to testify that on one occasion, when the odor was particularly offensive, a small child was made sick. There was uncontradicted evidence that the gas coming from the lagoons was toxic. Other witnesses...