747 S.E.2d 468
S.C.2013Background
- Six neighbors near a landfill sue for nuisance, trespass, and negligence due to odors; damages limited to annoyance, discomfort, and interference with enjoyment of property, not personal injury.
- Jury awarded $532,500 actual damages and $300,000 in punitive damages per plaintiff; district judge certified five questions to the state Supreme Court.
- Plaintiffs abandoned loss of use, diminution in value, and personal injury claims; remaining theory centers on temporary/intermittent odor intrusion.
- Court analyzes whether damages for temporary trespass/nuisance are limited to lost rental value and whether odors can support trespass; consideration of a potential negligence claim and need for expert testimony.
- Questions certified concern: damages measure for temporary vs permanent trespass/nuisance; existence of trespass from invisible odors; cap on damages; independent negligence claim; need for expert testimony to establish standard of care for landfill odors.
- Court ultimately resolves the five questions, outlining the scope and limits of trespass, nuisance, and negligence-based remedies in South Carolina law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Damages for temporary trespass/nuisance limited to lost rental value? | Plaintiffs contend damages extend beyond lost rental value for annoyance and discomfort. | Landfill argues damages are limited to lost rental value. | No; damages for temporary trespass/nuisance limited to lost rental value. |
| Can odors give rise to trespass without a physical invasion? | Pls argue odors are an intangible intrusion constituting trespass. | Deny trespass from intangible odors; odors only support nuisance. | No; trespass requires a physical, tangible invasion; odors do not constitute trespass. |
| Maximum damages for permanent trespass/nuisance if no restoration costs claimed? | If permanent, damages may exceed mere use value. | Damages capped by market value when no restoration costs asserted. | Damages for permanent trespass/nuisance limited to full market value. |
| Can a negligent claim arise from offensive odors migrating onto plaintiff’s land? | Odors could support negligence like any other defective harm. | Odors alone are not actionable without duty/breach/causation/damages. | Possible in negligence, but must satisfy all elements and limits apply. |
| Does establishing the landfill operator’s standard of care require expert testimony? | Expert testimony may be necessary to prove standard of care. | Judicial discretion governs whether expert testimony is required. | Determination is case-specific; trial judge has discretion; no definitive rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gray v. Southern Facilities, Inc., 256 S.C. 558, 188 S.E.2d 438 (S.C. 1971) (loss measure for temporary property harm; lost rental value principle)
- Ravan v. Greenville Cnty., 315 S.C. 447, 434 S.E.2d 296 (Ct.App. 1993) (trespass limited to property rights; distinction from nuisance)
- Threatt v. Brewer Mining Co., 49 S.C. 95, 26 S.E. 970 (1897) (odors as element of invasion; ambiguous authority on personal injury)
- Martin v. Reynolds Metals Co., 221 Or. 86, 342 P.2d 790 (Or. 1959) (discarded dimensional test; trespass merged with energy-intrusion theory)
- Borland v. Sanders Lead Co., Inc., 369 So.2d 523 (Ala. 1979) (two-tier trespass: direct (tangible) vs indirect (intangible) intrusions)
- Adams v. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co., 237 Mich.App. 51, 602 N.W.2d 215 (Mich. App. 1999) (rejection of intangible trespass; maintained dimensional test)
- Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Williams, 377 S.C. 179, 659 S.E.2d 193 (Ct.App. 2008) (distinguishing nuisance vs trespass damages; nominal vs actual damages)
- Doooley v. Richland Mem’l Hosp., 283 S.C. 372, 322 S.E.2d 669 (S.C. 1984) (emotional distress damages generally not recoverable absent physical manifestation)
- O’Leary-Payne v. R.R. Hilton Head, Inc., 371 S.C. 340, 638 S.E.2d 96 (Ct.App. 2006) (common knowledge exception to expert testimony; case-specific)
- Sherrill v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 260 S.C. 494, 197 S.E.2d 283 (S.C. 1973) (negligence elements and case-by-case assessment)
- Green v. Lilliewood, 272 S.C. 186, 249 S.E.2d 910 (Ct.App. 1978) (expert testimony generally required for matters beyond common knowledge)