Okla. City v. Tytenicz
Decision Date | 16 April 1935 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 25711 |
Citation | 171 Okla. 519,1935 OK 433,43 P.2d 747 |
Parties | OKLAHOMA CITY v. TYTENICZ |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Municipal Corporations - Nuisance Created or Permitted by Municipality - Liability to Person Injured.
Where a municipal corporation creates or permits a nuisance by nonfeasance or misfeasance, it is guilty of tort, and is liable in damages to any person suffering special injury therefrom, irrespective of the question of negligence; and such liability cannot be avoided on the ground that the municipality was exercising governmental functions.
2. Nuisance - Personal Inconvenience and Annoyance to Occupant of Real Estate as Element of Damages Distinct From Depreciation of Usable or Rental Value of Property.
The personal inconvenience, annoyance, and discomfort to the occupant of real estate is a separate and distinct element of damage from that of the depreciation of the usable or rental value of the real estate occupied.
3. Waters and Water Courses - Nuisance - Loss for Domestic Purposes of Use of Water as Injury to Usable or Rental Value of Realty - Requisite Evidence for Recovery of Damages.
The loss for domestic purposes of the use of water from a stream is an injury to the usable or rental value of the real estate bordering on said stream; and, before the plaintiff may recover for the damage to the usable value of the property, evidence must be offered as to the amount of the depreciation in the usable or rental value by virtue of the nuisance.
4. Trial - Instruction not Applicable to Evidence Erroneous.
An instruction not applicable to the facts proven, although correctly stating an abstract proposition of law, should not be given.
Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; Geo. A. Henshaw, Judge.
Action by Charley Tytenicz against Oklahoma City. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.
Harlan Deupree, Municipal Counselor, and P.E. Gumm, Asst. Municipal Counselor, for plaintiff in error.
Dabney, Lawson, Rakestraw & Benson, for defendant in error.
¶1 This is an action in which the defendant in error, plaintiff below, as a riparian owner, sues the city of Oklahoma City, plaintiff in error, defendant below, for temporary damage to 160 acres of land belonging to him, situated upon the North Canadian river, east of Oklahoma City.
¶2 The parties will be referred to herein as they appeared in the trial court.
¶3 The plaintiff's chief contention was that the defendant carelessly and negligently dumped its sewage and chemicals into the North Canadian river, which were carried by said river by and on the defendant's property, and produced such a foul odor at plaintiff's property that he was damaged thereby; and that the defendant, city of Oklahoma City, was negligent in that it did not build adequate disposal plants to take care of the sewage of the city. By stream line the farm was 33 miles from the point where the sewage was poured into the river. The case was tried to a jury, and a verdict for $450 was returned in favor of the plaintiff.
¶4 The first proposition urged by the defendant on this appeal is that the city is not liable, for the reason that it is not liable for the negligence of its agents in the operation of a governmental function. This contention is without merit, because this court held in Oklahoma City v. West, 155 Okla. 63, 7 P.2d 888, that the city of Oklahoma City was liable for throwing sewage into the North Canadian river which created a nuisance. The liability did not depend upon whether there was negligence upon the part of the city's agents or not, but on the mere fact that sewage was cast into the stream and it created a nuisance. City of Tecumseh v. Deister, 112 Okla. 3, 239 P. 582; Colbert v. City of Ardmore, 31 Okla. 537, 122: P. 508; City of Ardmore v. Colbert, 52 Okla. 235, 152 P. 603; City of Cushing v. Luke, 82 Okla. 189, 199 P. 578. The well-established rule is that a municipality is liable, irrespective of the negligence of its agents or the fact that it was carrying on a governmental function in maintaining a nuisance which is a common-law tort.
¶5 In 43 Corpus Juris, Municipal Corp. _ 1734, the following statement is found:
"Where a municipal corporation creates or permits a nuisance by nonfeasance or misfeasance, it is guilty of tort, and like a private corporation or individual, and to the same extent, is liable for damages in a civil action to any person suffering special injury therefrom, irrespective of the question of negligence; and such liability cannot be avoided on the ground that the municipality was exercising governmental powers. * * *"
¶6 This rule as to negligence is supported by the following cases: Brigeman-Russell Co. v. Duluth, 158 Minn. 509, 197 N.W. 971; Wiltse v. Red Wing, 99 Minn. 255, 109 N.W. 114; City of Paris v. Jenkins, 57 Tex. Civ. App. 383, 122 S.W. 411. And on the governmental function question it is supported by the following cases: District of Columbia v. Totten, 55 App. D.C. 312, 5 F.2d 374, 40 A. L. R. 1461; City of Newcastle v. Harvey, 54 Ind. App. 243, 102 N.E. 878; City of New Albany v. Slider, 21 Ind. App. 392, 52 N.E. 626; Hart v. Union County, 57 N.J. Law, 90, 29 A. 490; Jones v. Sanitary District of Chicago, 252 Ill. 591, 97 N.E. 210; Sadlier v. City of New York, 40 Misc. 78, 81 N.Y. S. 308; Kobbe v. Village of New Brighton, 23 App. Div. 243, 48 N.Y. S. 990; City of Madisonville v. Hardman, 92 S.W. 930, 29 Ky. Law Rep. 253.
¶7 The defendant complains of the following instructions:
¶8 Instruction No. 7 ( ) and instruction No. 10 permitted the jury to consider the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Tulsa v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 01-CV-0900-EA(C).
...and annoyance are injuries to the person and not to the property. See Truelock, 967 P.2d at 1187 (quoting Oklahoma City v. Tytenicz, 171 Okla. 519, 43 P.2d 747, 748-49 (1935)). However, it does not necessarily follow that only natural persons can recover damages for such The Arkansas Suprem......
-
Okla. City v. Eylar
...208, 50 P.2d 361, and in the case of Oklahoma City v. Tyetenicz, 175 Okla. 228, 52 P.2d 849. In another case styled Oklahoma City v. Tyetenicz, 171 Okla. 519, 43 P.2d 747, it was held that personal inconvenience, annoyance, and discomfort to the occupant of real estate Is a separate and dis......
-
Oklahoma City v. Eylar
...61 P.2d 649 177 Okla. 616, 1936 OK 614 OKLAHOMA CITY v. EYLAR. No. 25574.Supreme Court of OklahomaOctober 13, 1936 ... Syllabus ... by the Court ... of Oklahoma City v. Tyetenicz, 175 Okl. 228, 52 P.2d ... 849. In another case styled Oklahoma City v ... Tytenicz, 171 Okl. 519, 43 P.2d 747, 748, it was held ... that personal inconvenience, annoyance, and discomfort to the ... occupant of real estate is a ... ...
-
Brown v. City of Craig
... ... 5 F.2d 374, certiorari denied 269 U.S. 562; Adams v. City ... of Toledo, 96 P.2d 1078; Oklahoma City v ... Tyteniez, 43 P.2d 747, 171 Okla. 519. (3) A municipal ... corporation is liable for personal injuries or death ... resulting from a nuisance created or maintained by it and ... ...