Hanson Aggregates West Inc. v. Ford, et al.

Appellant Hanson Aggregates West Inc. owns and operates a rock quarry near the city of Garden Ridge. Appellees contend that explosive blasting operations at Hanson's quarry were creating vibrations, noise, smoke and dust that were damaging their homes and diminishing their health and quality of life, thereby constituting a nuisance. The district court issued a permanent injunction limiting the strength and location of quarry blasting operations. In a single issue on appeal, Hanson argues that the district court abused its discretion in issuing the permanent injunction. There is legally sufficient evidence that Hanson's quarry operations did not result in an actionable nuisance to appellees. Given the jury's finding of no actionable nuisance by Hanson and appellees' failure to prove an actionable nuisance by Hanson as a matter of law, the district court lacked discretion to issue the permanent injunction. Austin Court of Appeals, No. 03-09-00397-CV, 01-06-2011

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

O P I N I ON

In dispute in this appeal are the substantive and procedural standards that govern claims for permanent injunctive relief against a private nuisance. A group of homeowners filed suit alleging that a nearby rock quarry had created a nuisance and sought both money damages and a permanent injunction limiting quarry operations. A jury failed to find either that the quarry owner had intentionally created a nuisance, that the owner had negligently created a nuisance, or that the owner’s conduct was “abnormal and out of place in its surroundings such as to create a nuisance.” Based on the jury’s verdict, the district court rendered judgment that the homeowners take nothing on their money-damage claims. However, the district court also issued a permanent injunction based on the court’s own determinations that the quarry operations “can and do create a nuisance” and “in balance of the equities a permanent injunction should issue.” We are called upon to determine whether the permanent injunction was an abuse of discretion in light of the jury’s verdict and the evidence at trial. We conclude that it was, and will render judgment vacating the injunction.

BACKGROUND

Hanson Aggregates West Inc. v. Ford, et al.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal