Millett v. Minnesota Crushed Stone Company
| Decision Date | 30 April 1920 |
| Docket Number | 21,678,21,679 |
| Parties | ALICE MILLETT v. MINNESOTA CRUSHED STONE COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Motion for Reargument Filed September 10, 1920
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $4,000 damages for the reasons mentioned in the first paragraph of the opinion. The answer among other matters alleged that the forty-acre tract of land mentioned in the complaint and the tract called the "Kletzin tract" had been and were mainly valuable for the limestone underlying the same; that in the year 1904 defendant began quarrying limestone from the tract and continued to do so until the summer of the year 1916, at which time it began quarrying from the Kletzin tract; that at the time defendant began its quarrying operations there were few houses in the neighborhood; that the region was slightly populated, the land marshy and boggy and the streets hardly passable for vehicles; that the region in the neighborhood of defendant's quarry, including the property of plaintiff, was not and never was of a residential character, and that it had been mainly and almost exclusively given over to quarrying, manufacturing and industrial enterprises. The case was tried before Converse, J., and a jury which returned a verdict for $1,932. From an order denying defendant's motion for a new trial on condition that plaintiff consented to a reduction of the verdict to $1,000, defendant appealed. Reversed.
Nuisance -- operation of quarry without negligence -- rights of habitation.
1. A landowner who has a deposit of limestone on his land may be liable for maintaining a nuisance, though he operates his quarry without negligence. Rights of habitation are superior to the rights of trade and whenever they conflict the latter must yield. Such a business must be conducted in such a manner as not to interfere materially with the health or physical comfort of people living in the neighborhood.
Nuisance -- measure of damages -- diminished rental or value of use.
2. A property owner, whose property is injured by a nuisance, may recover for the property damage sustained. This is generally the diminished rental value, if the property be rented, or the diminished value of the use if the property be used by the owner.
Recovery of damages by wife when husband owns the land.
3. Husband and wife cannot have separate actions for damages to property owned by one. This element of damage is recoverable only by the owner. In this action by a wife, the evidence was insufficient to show her ownership of the property during the period for which damages were recovered.
Recovery for discomfort or illness of owner or member of his family.
4. Either husband or wife, who owns the homestead, may recover for inconvenience, physical discomfort and illness suffered by such owner or any member of the family resulting from the nuisance. For this purpose the family is treated as a unit unless the facts be such as to give rise to a cause of action for personal injury. This element of damage is in addition to the diminished value of the use of the property.
John F Dahl and Conen, Atwater & Shaw, for appellant.
A. B. Jackson, for respondent.
Plaintiff sues to recover damages, extending over a period of six years, from the operation of a stone quarry, a stone crushing plant, and a grinding mill, near her home. It is claimed that because of noise and jar of blasting, the noise and danger of falling rocks, the noise of steam drills and of a steam shovel, and because of smoke and dust, the plant was a nuisance. The jury found for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
1. The rules governing liability of the defendant are those stated fully in Brede v. Minnesota Crushed Stone Co. 143 Minn. 374, 173 N.W. 805. They need not be repeated at length here. In brief they are, that a landowner who has a deposit of limestone on his land may not quarry as he chooses, but he may be liable for maintaining a nuisance in the operation of a quarry and other incidental industries, even though the odors, noise, dust and the like, complained of are ordinary incidents of such a business conducted without negligence; that the rights of habitation are superior to the rights of trade; and that whenever they conflict, the rights of trade must yield; that such a business must be conducted in such a manner as not to offend or interfere materially with the health or ordinary physical comfort of people living in the neighborhood.
2. Defendant contends that the court erred in instructing the jury that the measure of plaintiff's recovery "would be the diminution in the value of the use of the said homestead as a home for the purpose for which such homestead has been used by her; also any personal discomforts or inconveniences which she may have suffered including impairment of her health or injury to her health."
This involves two questions: First, whether plaintiff is entitled to recover for the diminution of the value of the use of the property; and, second, whether recovery for personal discomfort, inconvenience and ill-health, are an additional element of damage.
As to the first proposition: A property owner, whose property is injured by a nuisance may recover for the property damage sustained. This is generally the diminished rental value, if the property be rented, or the diminished value of the use if the property be used by the owner. Pierce v. Wagner, 29 Minn. 355, 13 N.W. 170; Berger v. Minneapolis Gaslight Co. 60 Minn. 296, 62 N.W. 336; Anderson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. 85 Minn. 337, 88 N.W. 1001; Baltimore & P.R. Co. v. Fifth Baptist Church, 108 U.S. 317, 2 S.Ct. 719, 27 L.Ed. 739.
Diminished rental value and diminished value of the use may be the same. Some decisions state that they are necessarily the same. Alexander v. Bishop, 59 Iowa 572, 13 N.W. 714. We think they may not be the same.
3. This element of damage is recoverable only by the owner. Prochnow v. Northwestern Iron Co. 156 Wis. 408, 145 N.W. 1098, 1104; Jefferson Fertilizer Co. v. Rich, 182 Ala. 633, 62 So. 40. Husband and wife cannot have separate actions for damage to property owned by one. Where the home is owned by the husband, the wife has well defined rights therein. For example one who commits a trespass by disturbing the peace and quiet of the home, commits such a wrong and breach of legal duty towards her that she may maintain an action in personal tort, and recover for the consequences of mental suffering caused by the wrongful trespass. Lesch v. Great Northern Ry. Co. 97 Minn. 503, 106 N.W. 955, 7 L.R.A. (N.S.) 93; Watson v. Dilts, 116 Iowa 249, 89 N.W. 1068, 57 L.R.A. 559, 93 Am. St. 239. But this is not in any sense a recovery for damage to property. A mere guest has been held to have similar rights. Hunt v. Lowell Gaslight Co. 8 Allen, 169, 85 Am. Dec. 697.
In this case the complaint alleged that the premises constituted the homestead of plaintiff's husband and herself and their nine children. There is no allegation of ownership in plaintiff. There is no...
To continue reading
Request your trial