Crosstex N. Tex. Pipeline, L.P. v. Gardiner - 451 S.W.3d 150 (Tex. App. 2014)

Rule:

A nuisance is a condition that substantially interferes with the use and enjoyment of land by causing unreasonable discomfort or annoyance to persons of ordinary sensibilities. An actionable nuisance may arise from an invasion of another's interests attributable to activity that is intentional, negligent, or abnormal and out of place in its surroundings. Although not all nuisances are grounded in negligence, when negligence has created or contributed to the creation of a nuisance, the plaintiff must allege and prove a legal duty owed to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty by the defendant, and damage proximately resulting from the breach.

Facts:

Between 1997 and 2002, appellees Andrew and Shannon Gardiner bought two adjacent tracts of property—a sixty acre tract and a thirty-five acre tract—next to the horse farm in Denton County. Farm-to-Market Road 1385 (FM 1385) bordered the Gardiners' land on two sides. In 2005, appellant Crosstex North Texas Pipeline, L.P., which was gathering, transporting, and delivering natural gas to public utilities and other interstate pipelines, bought around twenty acres on FM 1385 across from the Gardiners' land. In 2006, it obtained a pipeline easement from the Gardiners and then built on its land a compressor station that became operational in May 2007. The Gardiners sued Crosstex for intentional and negligent nuisance, negligence in the installation and operation of the compressor station, and gross negligence. The trial court granted a directed verdict to Crosstex on the negligence cause of action, and ten of twelve jurors found Crosstex liable for negligent nuisance and awarded the Gardiners $2,042,500 in damages. Crosstex appealed, arguing that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the jury's finding that it negligently created a nuisance.

Issue:

Was the evidence sufficient to support the jury’s finding that the appellant negligently created a nuisance? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The evidence was factually insufficient to support the jury's finding that the natural gas company negligently created a nuisance by building a compressor station on land across from the landowners where it showed that on a numerical basis the post-mitigation noise levels and most of the pre-mitigation noise levels were not incompatible with the landowners' actual use of the property, once the company received complaints about the station's noise it held a meeting with local landowners, consulted a sound expert, and began implementing mitigation efforts based on his recommendations, and there was no testimony that the station or the mitigation devices had been negligently installed.