Morgan v. High Penn Oil Co.

• Decision Date: 23 September 1953
• Docket Number: No. 667,667
• Citation: 77 S.E.2d 682,238 N.C. 185
• Parties: MORGAN et ux. v. HIGH PENN OIL CO. et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Page 682

77 S.E.2d 682

238 N.C. 185

MORGAN et ux. v. HIGH PENN OIL CO. et al.

No. 667

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 23, 1953

Frazier & Frazier, Greensboro, for plaintiffs, appellees.

Roberson, Haworth & Reese, High Point, and Brooks, Mclendon, Brim & Holderness, Greensboro, for defendants, appellants.

ERVIN, Justice.

Each defendant assigns as error the disallowance of its motion for a compulsory nonsuit. We consider these assignments of error separately because the defendants urge different reasons to sustain their respective positions.

The High penn Oil Company contends that the evidence is not sufficient to establish either an actionable or an abatable private nuisance. This contention rests on a twofold argument somewhat alternative in character. The High penn Oil Company asserts primarily that private nuisances are classified as nuisances per se or at law, and nuisances per accidens or in fact; that when one carries on an oil refinery upon premises in his rightful occupation, he conducts a lawful enterprise, and for that reason does not maintain a nuisance per se or at law; that in such case the oil refinery can constitute a nuisance per accidens or in fact to the owner of neighboring land if, and only if, it is constructed or operated in a negligent manner; that there was no testimony at the trial tending to show that the oil refinery was constructed or operated in a negligent manner; and that consequently the evidence does not suffice to establish the existence of either an actionable or an abatable private nuisance. The High Penn Oil Company insists secondarily that the plaintiffs in a civil action can recover only on the case presented by their complaint; that the complaint in the instant action states a cause of action based solely on negligence; that there was no testimony at the trial indicating that the oil refinery was constructed or operated in a negligent manner; and that consequently the evidence is not sufficient to warrant the relief sought and obtained by the plaintiffs, even though it may be ample to establish a nuisance.

The case on appeal discloses some substantial reasons for contesting the soundness of the thesis of the High penn Oil Company that there was no testimony at the trial tending to show that the oil refinery was constructed or operated in a negligent manner. Even expert witnesses for the defendants testified in substance on cross-examination that the oil refinery would not emit gases or odors in annoying quantities if it were 'operated properly.' We would be compelled, however, to reject the argument of the High penn Oil Company on the present aspect of the appeal even if we should accept at face value its thesis that there was no testimony at the trial tending to show that the oil refinery was constructed or operated in a negligent manner.

The High Penn Oil Company asserts with complete correctness that private nuisances may be classified as nuisances per se or at law, and nuisances per accidens or in fact. A nuisance per se or at law is an act, occupation, or structure which is a nuisance at all times and under any circumstances, regardless of location or surroundings. 39 Am.Jur., Nuisances, section 11; 66 C.J.S., Nuisances, § 3. Nuisances per accidens or in fact are those which become nuisances by reason of their location, or by reason of the manner in which they are constructed, maintained, or operated. Swinson v. Realty Co., 200 N.C. 276, 156 S.E. 545; Cherry v. Williams, 147 N.C. 452, 61 S.E. 267, 125 Am. St.Rep. 566, 15 Ann.Cas. 715; Dargan v. Waddill, 31 N.C. 244, 49 Am.Dec. 421. The High penn Oil Company also asserts with complete correctness that an oil refinery is a lawful enterprise and for that reason cannot be a nuisance per se or at law. Waier v. Peerless Oil Co., 265 Mich. 398, 251 N.W. 552; Midland Empire Packing Co. v. Yale oil Corp. of S. D., 119 Mont. 36, 169 P.2d 732; Purcell v. Davis, 100 Mont. 480, 50 P.2d 255. The High Penn Oil Company falls into error, however, when it takes the position that an oil refinery cannot become a nuisance per accidens or in fact unless it is constructed or operated in a negligent manner.

Negligence and nuisance are distinct fields of tort liability. 39 Am.Jur., Nuisances, section 4. While the same act or omission may constitute negligence and also give rise to a private nuisance per accidens or in fact, and thus the two torts may coexist and be practically inseparable a private nuisance per accidens or in fact may be created or maintained without negligence. Butler v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 218 N.C. 116, 10 S.E.2d 603; Swinson v. Realty Co., supra; 39 Am.Jur., Nuisances, section 24; 65 C.J.S., Negligence, § 1; 66 C.J.S., Nuisances, § 11. Most private nuisances per accidens or in fact are intentionally created or maintained, and are redressed by the courts without allegation or proof of negligence. Godfrey v. Western Power Co., 190 N.C. 24, 128 S.E. 485; Moran v. pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co., 3 Cir., 166 F. 2d 908; King v. Columbian Carbon Co., 5 Cir., 152 F.2d 636; Rauh & Sons Fertilizer Co. v. Shreffler, 6 Cir., 139 F.2d 38; Actiesselskabet Ingrid v. Central R. Co., 2 Cir., 216 F. 72, L.R.A.1916B, 716; Terrell v. Alabama Water Service Co., 245 Ala. 68, 15 So.2d 727; Beam v. Birmingham Slag Co., 243 Ala. 313, 10 So.2d 162; Gus Blass Dry Goods Co. v. Reinman & Wolfort, 102 Ark. 287, 143 S.W. 1087; Curtis v. Kastner, 220 Cal. 185, 30 P.2d 26; Kafka v. Bozio, 191 Cal. 746, 218 p. 753, 29 A.L.R. 833; Swift & Co. v. People's Coal & Oil Co., 121 Conn. 579, 186 A. 629; Cunningham v. Wilmington Ice Mfg. Co., 2 W.W.Harr., Del., 229, 121 A. 654; Dilucehio v. Shaw, 1 W.W. Harr., Del., 509, 115 A. 771; District of Columbia v. Totten, 55 App.D.C. 312, 5 F.2d 374, certiorari denied 269 U.S. 562, 46 S.Ct. 21, 70 L.Ed. 412; Pitner v. Shugart Bros., 150 Ga. 340, 103 S.E. 791, 11 A.L.R. 1399; Laflin & Rand Powder Co. v. Tearney, 131 I11. 322, 23 N.E. 389, 7 L.R.A. 262, 19 Am. S.R. 34; Menolascino v. Superior Felt & Bedding Co., 313 I11.App. 557, 40 N.E.2d 813; City of Lebanon v. Twiford, 13 Ind. App. 384, 41 N.E. 844; Ryan v. City of Emmetsburg, 232 Iowa 600, 4 N.W.2d 435; Andrews v. Western Asphalt Paving Corporation, 193 Iowa 1047, 188 N.W. 900; Bowman v. Humphrey, 132 Iowa 234, 109 N.W. 714, 6 L.R.A.,N.s., 1111, 11 Ann.Cas. 131; Carlson v. Mid-Continent Development Co., 103 Kan. 464, 173 P. 910, L.R.A.1918F, 318; Bailey v. Kelly, 93 Kan. 723, 145 P. 556, L. R.A.1916D, 1220, Id., 86 Kan. 911, 122 P. 1027, 39 L.R.A.,N.S., 378; Rogers v. Bond Bros., 279 Ky. 239, 130 S.W.2d 22; O'Neal v. Southern Carbon Co., 211 La. 1075, 31 So.2d 216; Foley v. H. F. Farnham Co., 135 Me. 29, 188 A. 708; Toy v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co., 176 Md. 197, 4 A.2d 757; Bern v. Boston Consol. Gas Co., 310 Mass. 651, 39 N.E.2d 576; Ferriter v. Herlihy, 287 Mass. 138, 191 N.E. 352; Hakkila v. Old Colony Broken Stone & Concrete Co., 264 Mass. 447, 162 N.E. 895; Wilkinson v. Detroit Steel & Spring Works, 73 Mich. 405, 41 N.W. 490; H. Christianson & Sons v. City of Duluth, 225 Minn. 475, 31 N.W.2d 270; Johnson v. City of Fairmont, 188 Minn. 451, 247 N.W. 572; Pearson v. Kansas City, 331 Mo. 885, 55 S.W.2d 485; Boyle v. Neisner Bros., 230 Mo.App. 90, 87 S.W. 2d 227; Jeffers v. Montana Power Co., 68 Mont. 114, 217 P. 652; Toft v. City of Lincoln, 125 Neb. 498, 250 N.W. 748; Brownsey v. General Printing Ink Corporation, 118 N.J.L. 505, 193 A. 824; Dixon v. New York Trap Rock Corporation, 293 N.Y. 509, 58 N.E.2d 517, motion for reargument denied, 294 N.Y. 654, 60 N.E.2d 385; Hogle v. H. H. Franklin Mfg. Co., 199 N.Y. 388, 92 N.E. 794, 32 L.R.A.,N.S., 1038, affirming judgment, 128 AppDiv. 403, 112 N.Y.S.881; Bohan v. Port Jervis Gas-light Co., 122 N. Y. 18, 25 N.E. 246, 9 L.R.A. 711; Kremer v. City of Uhrichsville, 67 Ohio App. 61, 35 N.E.2d 973; Ohio Stock Food Co. V. Gintling, 22 Ohio App. 82, 153 N.E. 341; Vautier v. Atlantic Refining Co., 231 Pa. 8, 79 A. 814; Gavigan v. Atlantic Refining Co., 186 Pa. 604, 40 A. 834; Rogers v. Philadelphia Traction Co., 182 Pa. 473, 38 A. 399, 61 Am.St.Rep. 716; Rose v. Standard Oil Co. of New York, 56 R.I. 272, 185 A. 251, reargument denied, 56 R.I. 472, 188 A. 71; Braun v. Iannotti, 54 R.I. 469, 175 A. 656; Frost v. Berkeley Phosphate Co., 42 S.C. 402, 20 S.E. 280, 26 L.R.A. 693, 46 Am.St. Rep. 736; Cuffman v. City of Nashville, 26 Tenn.App. 367, 175 S.W.2d 331; Soap Corp. of America v. Balis, Tex.Civ.App., 223 S.W. 2d 957; Columbian Carbon Co. v. Tholen, Tex.Civ.App., 199 S.W.2d 825; G. L. Webster Co. v. Steelman, 172 Va. 342, 1 S.E.2d 305; Terrell v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 110 Va. 340, 66 S.E. 55, 32 L.R.A.,N.S., 371; Bartel v. Ridgefield Lumber Co., 131 Wash. 183, 229 P. 306, 37 A.L.R. 683; Flanagan v. Gregory & Poole, Inc., W.Va., 67 S.E.2d 865; Wilson v. Phoenix Powder Mfg. Co., 40 W.Va. 413, 21 S.E. 1035, 52 Am.St.Rep. 890; Dolata v. Berthelet Fuel & Supply Co., 254 Wis. 194, 36 N.W.2d 97; Brown v. Milwaukee Terminal R. Co., 199 Wis. 575, 227 N.W. 385, reversing 199 Wis. 575, 224 N.W. 748.

The law of private nuisance rests on the concept embodied in the ancient legal maxim Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas, meaning, in essence, that every person should so use his own property as not to injure that of another. Barger v. Barringer, 151 N.C. 433, 66 S.E. 439, 25 L.R.A., N.S., 831, 19 Ann.Cas. 472; Tennessee Coal Iron & R. Co. v. Hartline, 244 Ala. 116, 11 So.2d 833; Beam v. Birmingham Slag Co., supra; G. L. Webster Co. v. Steelman, supra. As a consequence, a private nuisance exists in a legal sense when one makes an improper use of his own property and in that way injures the land or some incorporeal right of one's neighbor. King v. Ward, 207 N.C. 782, 178 S.E. 577; Holton v. Northwestern Oil Co., 201 N.C. 744, 161 S.E. 391; 39 Am.Jur., Nuisances, section 3.

Much confusion exists in respect to the legal basis of liability in the law of private nuisance because of the deplorable tendency of ...