Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Vandergriff, Case Number: 29262
| Citation | 122 P.2d 1020,190 Okla. 280,1942 OK 94 |
| Decision Date | 24 February 1942 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 29262 |
| Parties | PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO. v. VANDERGRIFF |
| Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
1942 OK 94
122 P.2d 1020
190 Okla. 280
PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO.
v.
VANDERGRIFF
Case Number: 29262
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided: February 24, 1942
¶0 1. NUISANCE --Right to damages where lawful business so conducted as to constitute private nuisance.
Where the facts show that a lawful business is being conducted in such manner as to constitute a private nuisance causing substantial injury to property, the aggrieved party may recover compensation for the injury sustained.
2. NEGLIGENCE--Each wrongdoer responsible for result of concurrent acts.
Where, although concert is lacking, the separate and independent acts of several combine to produce directly a single injury, each is responsible for the entire result, even though his act alone might not have caused it.
Don Emery and Rayburn L. Foster, both of Bartlesville, and Harry D. Turner, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
B. H. Carey, Rex H. Holden, and R. B. Holtzendorff, all of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.
OSBORN, J.
¶1 This action was instituted in the district court of Oklahoma county by Dorothy Vandergriff, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, against the Phillips Petroleum Company, hereinafter referred to as defendant, wherein plaintiff sought to recover damages to certain real property owned by her resulting from the operation of a casinghead gas booster station in the vicinity of said property. Issues were joined, the cause was tried to a jury, and a verdict returned in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $875. From a judgment thereon, defendant has appealed.
¶2 Pending the action, plaintiff married one Paul Gillespie.
¶3 Plaintiff alleged that she was the owner of certain real property located in the Capitol Courts addition to the city of Oklahoma City; that said property consisted of a four-room brick bungalow and a three-room frame bungalow, and that plaintiff resided on the property as her homestead. She further alleged that in June, 1936, defendant began operating a large plant known as a "casinghead gas booster station" which is used for the purpose of pumping natural gas and other petroleum products through pipe lines owned and operated by defendant; that said property was located about three blocks north of the property of plaintiff and just outside of the corporate limits of the city of Oklahoma City; that in the necessary operation of said booster station defendant used about 35 units, each consisting of twin motors, making a total of 70 motors, each unit generating about 250 horsepower; that said booster station extended about a block in length; that attached to and made a part of said units or motors are heavy flywheels which are revolved at a rapid rate of speed; that said motors are in constant operation day and night, including Sunday; that by reason of the operation of said motors vibrations are given off which vibrations are conducted through the earth and through the air over to the property of this plaintiff and cause said property to shake and vibrate and tremble; that said vibrations are conducted through the earth and through the air with such force and intensity as to damage the foundation of plaintiff's home and to cause same to crack and settle; that plaintiff's home is warped out of plumb so that the doors and windows will not open and close properly; that the walls of the home both inside and out have been damaged and cracked. Plaintiff alleged that her property has been damaged to the extent of $1,500.
¶4 For a second cause of action, plaintiff sought recovery of damages for inconvenience, annoyance, and discomfort, but the jury found against her on this cause of action and she has prosecuted no cross-appeal. We have therefore omitted the allegations with reference to plaintiff's claims for damages for inconvenience, annoyance, and discomfort.
¶5 For its answer defendant filed a general denial and admitted its ownership and operation of the booster station, but alleged that said station was properly located and that the use of the premises for the operation thereof constituted a proper, reasonable, and necessary use thereof.
¶6 For its first assignment of error defendant complains of the giving of the following instruction:
"If, from a preponderance of all the evidence, facts and surrounding circumstances in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garland Coal & Mining Company v. Few, 6026.
...128 Okl. 106, 261 P. 551; Fairfax Oil Co. v. Bolinger, 186 Okl. 20, 97 P.2d 574; Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Vandergriff, 190 Okl. 280, 122 P.2d 1020; British-American Oil Producing Co. v. McClain, 191 Okl. 41, 126 P.2d 530; Seismograph Service Corp. v. Buchanan, Okl., 316 P.2d 185;4 Smith v.......
-
Thorson v. City of Minot, 1
...Ry. Co., 157 Ohio St. 38, 104 N.E.2d 173 (personal injuries to streetcar passenger); Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Vandergriff, 190 Okl. 280, 122 P.2d 1020 (damage to realty by vibration); Murray v. Smithson, 187 Va. 759, 48 S.E.2d 239 (personal injuries from automobile accident); Bolick v. Gal......
-
Harper-Turner Oil Co. v. Bridge, HARPER-TURNER
...173 Okl. 48, 46 P.2d 484; Town of Sentinel v. Boggs, 177 Okl. 623, 61 P.2d 654; and Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Vandergriff, 190 Okl. 280, 122 P.2d 1020. These cases are merely illustrative of the well established rule in this jurisdiction that where persons are guilty of separate and indepen......
-
White v. Taylor, 62217
...484 (Okl.1935), Town of Sentinel v. Boggs, 177 Okl. 623, 61 P.2d 654 (Okl.1936), and Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Vandergriff, 190 Okl. 280, 122 P.2d 1020 (Okl.1942). However, these cases deal primarily with issues concerning realty, where the injury occurred within one county during the same ......