Lowder v. Tina Marie Homes, Inc.
| Decision Date | 13 September 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-437,78-437 |
| Citation | 601 P.2d 657,43 Colo.App. 225 |
| Parties | Richard and Peggy LOWDER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TINA MARIE HOMES, INC., a Colorado Corporation, Defendant-Appellant. . III |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Norton Frickey & Associates, Dan W. Corson, Denver, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Louis A. Morrone, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Tina Marie Homes appeals the trial court's award of damages in an action by Richard and Peggy Lowder for private nuisance. Tina Marie contends that the trial court erred in finding that its conduct amounted to intentional private nuisance interfering with the Lowders' use and enjoyment of their property. It further argues that the trial court erred in taking judicial notice of the velocity of the wind in Boulder County, and that the damages awarded by the trial court were excessive. We affirm.
The Lowders owned property immediately to the east of a vacant lot owned by Tina Marie Homes. In September 1973, the vacant lot was scraped and leveled with heavy machinery, a process which removed all of the vegetation and left the soil in a loose and sandy condition. Beginning in January 1974, and continuing through March 1975, a series of heavy windstorms caused a substantial amount of soil to be blown from Tina Marie's vacant lot causing high drifts of dirt to be deposited on the Lowders' property.
In making its findings, the trial court took judicial notice of the high winds in Boulder County occurring from October through March. The court found that the wind-blown dirt unreasonably interfered with the Lowders' use and enjoyment of their property and caused them damage in the form of removal costs, loss of enjoyment, and annoyance, inconvenience, and discomfort. The court also found that Tina Marie intentionally caused the scraping of the property to be accomplished, that the injury was foreseeable, and that Tina Marie should have known the consequences to follow. The court concluded that Tina Marie's conduct constituted a private nuisance.
In a private nuisance action, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant unreasonably interfered with the use and enjoyment of his property. Miller v. Carnation Co., 33 Colo.App. 62, 516 P.2d 661 (1973). Additionally, the interference which occurs must be substantial in nature in that it would be offensive or cause inconvenience or annoyance to a reasonable person in the community. Northwest Water Corp. v. Pennetta, 29 Colo.App. 1, 479 P.2d 398 (1970).
Liability for nuisance may rest upon any one of three types of conduct: an intentional invasion of a person's interest; a negligent invasion of a person's interest; or, conduct so dangerous to life or property and so abnormal or out-of-place in its surroundings as to fall within the principles of strict liability. Baughman v. Cosler, 169 Colo. 534, 459 P.2d 294 (1969). Tina Marie argues that the trial court found that its conduct constituted an intentional invasion of the plaintiffs' interests and rejected the remaining two theories of nuisance. We disagree.
The trial court held that the defendant's conduct was "intentional in that they caused the scraping of their property to be accomplished, and they should have known the consequences to follow from that scraping." The court did not find, however, that the defendant intentionally interfered with the plaintiffs'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cook v. Rockwell Intern. Corp.
...Id. (citing Restatement § 821F); see Haas v. Lavin, 625 F.2d 1384, 1389 (10th Cir.1980) (quoting Lowder v. Tina Marie Homes, Inc., 43 Colo.App. 225, 601 P.2d 657, 658 (1979)).25 In other words, "`[w]hether the various factors of interference asserted by the plaintiffs as to their use and en......
-
Public Service Co. of Colorado v. Van Wyk
...or out of place in its surroundings as to fall within the scope of strict liability. Id. at 198 (citing Lowder v. Tina Marie Homes, Inc., 43 Colo.App. 225, 601 P.2d 657 (1979)). The court stated that liability predicated on intentional conduct assumes a knowing affirmative act on the part o......
-
Hoery v. US
...abnormal or out-of-place in its surroundings as to fall within the principles of strict liability. Id.; Lowder v. Tina Marie Homes Inc., 43 Colo.App. 225, 227, 601 P.2d 657, 658 (1979). Like a trespass, conduct constituting a nuisance can include indirect or physical conditions created by d......
-
9586 LLC v. Great Am. Grp. LLC (In re Abound Solar Mfg., LLC)
...must establish that the defendant "unreasonably interfered with the use and enjoyment of his property." Lowder v. Tina Marie Homes, Inc., 43 Colo.App. 225, 601 P.2d 657, 658 (1979) (citing Miller v. Carnation Co., 33 Colo.App. 62, 516 P.2d 661 (1973) ). Under Colorado Law, a plaintiff must ......
-
CHAPTER 10 TOXIC TORTS PROPERTY DAMAGE AND PERSONAL INJURY: EMERGING THEORIES AND RELATION TO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
...1, 1989) (Order of Directed Jury Verdict); cf. Yakes v. Williams, 129 Colo. 427, 270 P.2d 765, 768 (1954); Lowder v. Marie Homes, Inc., 43 Colo. App. 225, 601 P.2d 657, 658 (1979); Johnson v. Rouchleau-Ray Iron Land Co., 168 N.W. 1, 2 (Minn. 1918); Gray v. Southern Facilities, 256 S.C. 558,......
-
CHAPTER 16 LESSONS LEARNED: RISE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AS PROJECTS GROW, MATURE, AND CLOSE
...Summit. Inc., 616 P.2d 765 (Wyo. 1980). [49] Allison v. Smith, 695 P.2d 791 (Colo. App. 1984). [50] Lowder v. Tina Marie Homes, Inc., 43 Colo. App. 225, 601 P.2d 657 (1979); Miller v. Carnation Co., 33 Colo. App. 62, 516 P.2d 661 (1973). [51] Northwest Water Corp. v. Pennetta, 479 P.2d 398 ......
-
Colorado Common Law Actions to Abate the Mishandling of Hazardous Materials
...plaintiff does not have to prove irreparable harm). 4. Haas v. Lavin, 625 F.2d 1384 (10th Cir. 1980); Lowder v. Tina Marie Homes, Inc., 43 Colo.App. 225, 601 P.2d 657 (1979). 5. Smillie v. Continental Oil Co., 127 F.Supp. 508 (D.Colo. 1955). 6. Allison v. Smith, 695 P.2d 791 (Colo.App. 1984......
-
Rule 201: the Use of Hearsay in Establishing Facts Sufficient for Judicial Notice
...engineered for each make and model of automobile. They are tested and refined for each model produced"); Lowder v. Tina Marie Homes, Inc., 601 P.2d 657, 659 (Colo.App. 1979) (climatological facts). 5. Adams County Golf, Inc. v. Colo. Dep't of Revenue, 610 P.2d 97, 99 (Colo. 1980). ("It is c......