Copart Industries, Inc. v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc., 41 N.Y.2d 564 (1977)

Liability for nuisance can arise from intentional and unreasonable conduct, negligence, or abnormally dangerous activities; negligence must be proven when a nuisance has its origin in negligent conduct; and an intentional nuisance requires proof that the defendant acted for the purpose of causing the invasion or knew it was substantially certain to result from their conduct.

Summary

Copart Industries sued Consolidated Edison (Con Ed) for nuisance, trespass, and air pollution violations, alleging that Con Ed’s emissions damaged cars stored on Copart’s property. The trial court dismissed some claims and merged trespass into nuisance, instructing the jury on nuisance based on negligence and intentional conduct. The jury found for Con Ed. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding an intertwining of negligence with the claimed nuisance. The Court of Appeals affirmed, clarifying the elements of nuisance and holding that negligence must be proven when the nuisance arises from negligent conduct, and intent must be proven for intentional nuisance.

Facts

Copart Industries leased land adjacent to Con Ed’s plant to store and prepare new cars. Copart alleged that emissions from Con Ed’s plant damaged the cars, requiring repainting and causing dealers to cease doing business with them. Con Ed’s plant produced steam and electricity and had converted from coal to oil fuel prior to the events in question. Copart claimed damages for loss of investment and profit due to these emissions.

Procedural History

Copart sued Con Ed in the trial court, asserting nuisance, trespass, and air pollution violations. The trial court dismissed the air pollution claim, merged the trespass claim into the nuisance claim, and instructed the jury on nuisance based on negligence and intentional conduct. The jury found in favor of Con Ed, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the trial court erred in charging the jury that Copart was required to prove Con Ed’s intent to cause damages to establish a nuisance.

2. Whether the trial court erred in charging the jury that Copart had the burden of proof regarding Con Ed’s negligence and Copart’s freedom from contributory negligence.

Holding

1. No, because a private nuisance based on intentional conduct requires proof that the defendant acted for the purpose of causing the invasion or knew it was substantially certain to result from their conduct.

2. No, because when a nuisance originates from negligence, negligence must be proven, and the plaintiff’s contributory negligence is a relevant consideration.

Court’s Reasoning

The court clarified that nuisance is a field of tort liability describing the consequences of conduct (inconvenience to others) rather than a specific type of conduct. Liability for private nuisance can arise from: (1) intentional and unreasonable conduct, (2) negligence, or (3) abnormally dangerous activities. The court emphasized the distinction between nuisance and trespass, noting that trespass involves the invasion of a person’s interest in the exclusive possession of land, while nuisance involves interference with the use and enjoyment of land. When a nuisance is based on negligence, negligence must be proven, and contributory negligence is a valid defense. For an intentional nuisance, the plaintiff must show that the defendant acted to cause the invasion or knew it was substantially certain to result from their conduct. The court quoted the Restatement of Torts § 825: “An invasion of another’s interest in the use and enjoyment of land is intentional when the actor (a) acts for the purpose of causing it; or (b) knows that it is resulting or is substantially certain to result from his conduct.” The court distinguished Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co., noting that in Boomer, the nuisance was based on an intentional and unreasonable invasion, not negligence, as the defendant had taken all available precautions to prevent dust emissions. Here, Copart introduced evidence suggesting Con Ed operated its plant negligently. Therefore, the trial court’s charge to the jury was proper.