Neighboring land owners brought suit alleging injury to property from dirt, smoke, and vibration emanating from the plant.
Lower court found that there was a nuisance and awarded temporary damages, but the injunction was denied.
Procedural History
Lower court found that there was a nuisance and awarded temporary damages, but the injunction was denied.
Appellate division also denied injunction.
Issues
When should the court award refuse injunctive relief for an environmental nuisance suit?
Holding/Rule
A court should refuse injunctive relief when there is a large disparity in economic consequences of the nuisance and the injunction.
Reasoning
Individual property owners are seeking specific relief from a single plant operation.
Threshold question is whether the court should resolve the litigation between the parties as equitably as possible or whether this private litigation should be channeled into broad public objectives.
Effective control of air pollution is a problem far from a solution. Amelioration of it will depend on technical research and require massive public expenditures.
A court should not try to do this on its own as a by-product of private litigation.
Judiciary is not prepared to lay down and implement an effective policy for the elimination of air pollution.
Ground for the denial of the injunction is that there is a large disparity in economic consequences of the nuisance and of the injunction.
However, this theory cannot be sustained without overruling doctrine stating that where a nuisance has been found and where there has been substantial damage, an injunction will be granted.
NY rule is that a nuisance will be enjoined although marked disparity be shown in economic consequence between the effect of the injunction and the effect of the nuisance.
Therefore, if the damage to Ps is not unsubstantial, an injunction should follow.
Total of permanent damages to all Ps was $185k.
To follow the rule literally in this case would result in the plant closing down.
One alternative is to grant the injunction but postpone its effect until a future date to allow the D to eliminate the nuisance.
However, it is unlikely that in 18 months there is going to be new technology that would allow this. Plant would just be shut down.
Another option is to grant the injunction unless the D pays permanent damages to Ps which would compensate them for the total economic loss to the property present and future.
Court chooses this option.
Dissent
I do not subscribe to the newly enunciated doctrine of assessment of permanent damages, in lieu of an injunction, where substantial property rights have been impaired by the creation of a nuisance.
Court should follow the rule and impose an injunction. The new rule allows the cement company to keep polluting indefinitely. This is a serious problem.
