Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co., 26 N.Y.2d 219 (1970)

r
r

When a nuisance causes substantial harm, but the cost of an injunction to the defendant is disproportionately high, a court may award permanent damages to the plaintiff instead of issuing an injunction.

r
r

Summary

r

Plaintiffs, neighboring landowners, sued Atlantic Cement for nuisance due to dirt, smoke, and vibrations from its cement plant. The trial court found a nuisance and awarded temporary damages but denied an injunction, considering the economic disparity between the harm to plaintiffs and the cost of closing the plant. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the denial of an injunction but modified the remedy. Instead of a traditional injunction, the court allowed the cement company to pay permanent damages to the plaintiffs, compensating them for all present and future harm, thus effectively creating a servitude on their land. This balances the equities by compensating the plaintiffs while avoiding the drastic measure of closing a major industrial operation.

r
r

Facts

r

Atlantic Cement Company operated a large cement plant near Albany, New York.

r

Neighboring landowners (plaintiffs) claimed the plant’s dirt, smoke, and vibrations caused damage to their properties.

r

The trial court found that the cement plant constituted a nuisance, causing substantial damage to the plaintiffs’ properties.

r

The total damage to the plaintiffs’ properties was relatively small compared to the value of the cement plant (over $45 million investment) and the economic consequences of an injunction (over 300 employees).

r
r

Procedural History

r

The trial court (Special Term) found Atlantic Cement maintained a nuisance and awarded temporary damages to the plaintiffs.

r

The trial court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction against the cement plant’s operations.

r

The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s findings.

r

The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

r
r

Issue(s)

r

Whether, in a private nuisance action where there is significant damage but a large economic disparity between the cost of the injunction and the harm caused by the nuisance, the court should grant a permanent injunction or allow permanent damages.

r
r

Holding

r

No, but an immediate injunction closing the plant is not warranted. The Court of Appeals reversed the denial of the injunction but allowed the cement company to pay permanent damages to the plaintiffs to compensate for the total economic loss, present and future, caused by the plant’s operations, in lieu of an injunction. This payment creates a servitude on the plaintiffs’ land.

r
r

Court’s Reasoning

r

The court acknowledged the established rule in New York that an injunction should be granted where a nuisance has been found and substantial damage has been shown. However, the court recognized the unique circumstances of this case, where the economic consequences of an injunction (closing the plant) were disproportionately large compared to the damage suffered by the plaintiffs. The court distinguished prior cases, noting that in cases like Whalen v. Union Bag & Paper Co., the damage was not unsubstantial, warranting an injunction. Here, while damage existed, the economic consequences of a traditional injunction were too severe.

r

The court reasoned that granting an injunction conditioned on the development of improved techniques within a short period (e.g., 18 months) would not guarantee any significant technical improvements, as such advancements depend on broader industry research beyond the defendant’s control. The Court stated, “techniques to eliminate dust and other annoying by-products of cement making are unlikely to be developed by any research the defendant can undertake within any short period, but will depend on the total resources of the cement industry Nationwide and throughout the world.”

r

Instead, the court adopted a solution where the defendant pays permanent damages to the plaintiffs, compensating them for all present and future harm. This effectively allows the cement plant to continue operating while redressing the plaintiffs’ economic losses. The court emphasized that this remedy is limited to the parties in this specific litigation and does not prevent public health or other agencies from seeking relief in a proper court. This decision aims to do justice between the parties, redressing all economic losses to the properties, while avoiding the drastic remedy of closing the plant. The court drew parallels to