{"id":4036,"date":"2016-06-27T12:59:38","date_gmt":"2016-06-27T17:59:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/?p=4036"},"modified":"2026-04-17T15:27:32","modified_gmt":"2026-04-17T20:27:32","slug":"texas-supreme-court-addresses-nuisance-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2016\/06\/27\/texas-supreme-court-addresses-nuisance-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Texas Supreme Court Addresses Nuisance Law"},"content":{"rendered":"

Last week, the Texas Supreme Court issued its opinion in\u00a0Crosstex North Texas Pipeline, L.P. v. Gardiner<\/em>. \u00a0[Read full opinion here<\/a>.] \u00a0In doing so, the Court took the much-needed opportunity to address and clarify the law of nuisance in Texas. \u00a0The 54-page opinion walks through a detailed discussion and analysis of nuisance law in Texas.<\/p>\n

Factual Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

Crosstex operates a natural gas pipeline running from Tarrant County to Lamar County. \u00a0Along this route, in Denton County, Crosstex bought a 20 acre tract of land midway along the pipeline that it used as\u00a0a storage yard during the construction of the pipeline and upon which it subsequently built a compressor station. \u00a0Crosstex conducted noise analysis, determining there was no need for “noise mitigation procedures,” but nevertheless installed “hospital grade” mufflers on the four engines. \u00a0At least one of these four engines runs 24 hours\/day, 7 days\/week.<\/p>\n

\"Compressor<\/a><\/p>\n

The plaintiffs own a 95 acre ranch adjacent (across a farm-to-market road) to Crosstex’ 20 acre tract. \u00a0The ranch is undeveloped, and the family purchased it as an investment property and to run cattle, ride horses, and enjoy the country.<\/p>\n

Shortly after the compression station was operational, the plaintiffs and other neighbors complained about the constant roar of the engines. \u00a0Some described the noise as being similar to a jet plane, and Crosstex’ own public relations specialist who visited the site described the noise as being “bad” and “very loud.” \u00a0After receiving these complaints, Crosstex worked with a sound-control firm to implement noise reduction measures, including constricting a building partially enclosing the engines, installing sound blankets, installing sound walls, and planting vegetation. \u00a0The Gardiners were not satisfied, however, particularly because the partial enclosure was left open on the side of the building facing their property.<\/p>\n

In May 2008, the Gardiners filed suit for nuisance, negligence, and gross negligence. \u00a0The lawsuit was amended to assert claims of intentional and negligent nuisance. \u00a0The trial court entered a verdict for Crosstex on the negligence claims, but allowed the issues of intentional and negligent nuisance to go to the jury. \u00a0The jury found in favor of the plaintiffs on the negligent nuisance theory, awarding $2 million, the amount the jury believed the nuisance damaged the fair market value of the plaintiffs’ property. \u00a0Crosstex appealed. \u00a0The appellate court found the evidence not factually sufficient to show negligent nuisance, but reversed the case on the grounds that the trial court should have allowed the plaintiffs to make a claim of nuisance based not on intentional acts or negligence, but instead based on the idea that the nuisance was caused by conduct that was “abnormal and out of place.” \u00a0Both parties sought review at the Texas Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

Supreme Court Opinion — Nuisance Law<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Court kicked off its opinion by discussing many of the difficulties facing courts when dealing with nuisance claims, perhaps most succinctly by quoting a legal scholar’s statement 70 years ago who deemed nuisance to be the law’s “garbage can.” \u00a0Recognizing the lack of clarity available for people seeking to recover or defend against nuisance claims, the Court decided to “attempt a more comprehensive, although certainly not exhaustive, explanation of the circumstances in which Texas law may hold a party liable for causing a private nuisance.”<\/p>\n

First, the Court made clear that under\u00a0Texas law, 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 attempting to use and enjoy it.” \u00a0A number of factors are considered in analyzing a nuisance claim, including the character of the neighborhood, the parties’ land usage, social expectations, the location of the land, the extent to which others are engaging in similar conduct in the area, the magnitude, extent, degree, frequency, or duration of the interference, the capacity of each party to bear the burden of ceasing or mitigating the usage, the defendants’ motive in causing the interference, and the interest of the public and community at large.<\/p>\n

The Court walked individually through\u00a0two of the key requirements:<\/p>\n